Abortion - An Issue of Rights, Morals, and Sensibility

[CivilLiberty]

Is the use of the word 'exceed' an unconcious artifact of your preference, or a deliberate attempt to emotionally sway your audience with loaded phraseology?

As a writer, I may indeed use words to emotionally sway. That what writers do.


Regards,


Andy

 

[manu1959]

look when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg .... the outcome is a human ... argue what ever you like but that is a fact ... wilfully terminating that process is killing a future human being that to is fact .... rationalize your behaviour anyway you like and argue whichever side you like but the facts remain

 

[no1tovote4]

As a writer, I may indeed use words to emotionally sway. That what writers do.


Regards,


Andy

But it is also a logical fallacy.

Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People):
using emotionally loaded words to sway the audience's sentiments instead of their minds. Many emotions can be useful: anger, spite, condescension, and so on.


For example, argument by condescension: "Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!"

Cliche Thinking and Argument By Slogan are useful adjuncts, particularly if you can get the audience to chant the slogan. People who rely on this argument may seed the audience with supporters or "shills", who laugh, applaud or chant at proper moments. This is the live-audience equivalent of adding a laugh track or music track. Now that many venues have video equipment, some speakers give part of their speech by playing a prepared video. These videos are an opportunity to show a supportive audience, use emotional music, show emotionally charged images, and the like. The idea is old: there used to be professional cheering sections. (Monsieur Zig-Zag, pictured on the cigarette rolling papers, acquired his fame by applauding for money at the Paris Opera.)

If the emotion in question isn't harsh, Argument By Poetic Language helps the effect. Flattering the audience doesn't hurt either.

 

[CivilLiberty]

look when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg .... the outcome is a human ... argue what ever you like but that is a fact ... wilfully terminating that process is killing a future human being that to is fact .... rationalize your behaviour anyway you like and argue whichever side you like but the facts remain

So then, using a condom because that will prevent the sperm from reaching the egg allowing the egg to die is also killing a future human??

It gets absurd at this level. In the first few weeks that little lump of undifferentiated flesh is no more a human being than the mole on my ass!

The mole, being a lump of cells, does not have its own soul, and it has no right to exist should I want it removed!

While the zygote has the potential to be "more" than the mole, it isn't a human being at that point in time.


Regards,


Andy

 

[Gem]

Wow, Andy. You mean you have moles on your ass that, if left alone to do what they would naturally do, would become a baby?

Thats pretty sick, you probably should see a doctor about that little problem.

 

[Avatar4321]

So then, using a condom because that will prevent the sperm from reaching the egg allowing the egg to die is also killing a future human??

It gets absurd at this level. In the first few weeks that little lump of undifferentiated flesh is no more a human being than the mole on my ass!

The mole, being a lump of cells, does not have its own soul, and it has no right to exist should I want it removed!

While the zygote has the potential to be "more" than the mole, it isn't a human being at that point in time.


Regards,


Andy

The only thing absurd is what you are saying. You cant kill something that isnt alive to begin with. The second the Sperm and egg join you have a unique new life. before then there is no unique human life.

Also the fact that you are trying to compare a mole to a human being shows nothing but your contempt for human life.

 

[manu1959]

So then, using a condom because that will prevent the sperm from reaching the egg allowing the egg to die is also killing a future human??It gets absurd at this level. In the first few weeks that little lump of undifferentiated flesh is no more a human being than the mole on my ass!
The mole, being a lump of cells, does not have its own soul, and it has no right to exist should I want it removed!While the zygote has the potential to be "more" than the mole, it isn't a human being at that point in time.Regards,Andy

so by extension then not having sex would be killing a future human? what about rubbing one out? don't change the subject it is a silly tactic

a mole and a developing embreyo are totaly different and you know it

i never said it was or was not a human being.... read the words i picked them carefully

ps i would get that thing on you ass looked at

 

[CivilLiberty]

But it is also a logical fallacy.

Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People):
using emotionally loaded words to sway the audience's sentiments instead of their minds. Many emotions can be useful: anger, spite, condescension, and so on.

In my younger days I wrote advertising - print, TV, but mostly radio. I'm sure that has influenced my style to this day.


A

 

[no1tovote4]

So then, using a condom because that will prevent the sperm from reaching the egg allowing the egg to die is also killing a future human??

It gets absurd at this level. In the first few weeks that little lump of undifferentiated flesh is no more a human being than the mole on my ass!

The mole, being a lump of cells, does not have its own soul, and it has no right to exist should I want it removed!

While the zygote has the potential to be "more" than the mole, it isn't a human being at that point in time.


Regards,


Andy

The argument was when the sperm fertilized the egg, this is another logical fallacy called Fallacy Of Composition:

Fallacy Of Composition:
assuming that a whole has the same simplicity as its constituent parts. In fact, a great deal of science is the study of emergent properties. For example, if you put a drop of oil on water, there are interesting optical effects. But the effect comes from the oil/water system: it does not come just from the oil or just from the water.

Another example: "A car makes less pollution than a bus. Therefore, cars are less of a pollution problem than buses."

Another example: "Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless."

Once the sperm fertilizes the egg is when a human life is created was the assertion. Therefore interfering before that happens is not "killing" anybody. As was implied by the original assertion. A sperm is a single cell organism without an entire DNA structure of a human, by itself it will never grow into a human and is not even a human in development. It is the Fertilization process that begins the Human life and the development of the offspring.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Wow, Andy. You mean you have moles on your ass that, if left alone to do what they would naturally do, would become a baby?

Thats pretty sick, you probably should see a doctor about that little problem.

I think I was pretty clear that a mole did not have "potential" and that "potential" is what we're talking about.

An unfertilized egg and some swimming sperm have potential too. but "potential" is not a human being.


A

 

[manu1959]

The argument was when the sperm fertilized the egg, this is another logical fallacy called Fallacy Of Composition: Once the sperm fertilizes the egg is when a human life is created was the assertion. Therefore interfering before that happens is not "killing" anybody. As was implied by the original assertion. A sperm is a single cell organism without an entire DNA structure of a human, by itself it will never grow into a human and is not even a human in development. It is the Fertilization process that begins the Human life and the development of the offspring.

don't you just hate being the smartest dude in the room?

 

[CivilLiberty]

Also the fact that you are trying to compare a mole to a human being shows nothing but your contempt for human life.

No, not contempt for human life, contempt for the belief that a zygote is a human being. it's a potential one, but not one yet.


A

 

[no1tovote4]

An unfertilized egg and some swimming sperm have potential too. but "potential" is not a human being.


A

This is very true. But once fertilized it ceases to be potential at that point is where it clearly is a human life in development, the egg and the sperm have then realized their potential.

 

[CivilLiberty]

This is very true. But once fertilized it ceases to be potential at that point is where it clearly is a human life in development, the egg and the sperm have then realized their potential.

Ah, so you admit it's a human life in development.

But in development means incomplete. It's potential is when complete.

And on the developmental path, there are milestones, and at some milestones, we can say that this is now a human being.

How do we distinguish the human from other animals? What makes us "most" different? Our brain. When does the most human aspect of our brain, the cerebellum, begin to develop? at 6 months, and it continues for over two years.

My contention is that before that part of the brain begins to develop, we have not much more than a mass of tissue.

Regards


Andy

 

[5stringJeff]

Ah, so you admit it's a human life in development.

But in development means incomplete. It's potential is when complete.

Except that all humans are in some state of development. Our physical development ends around age 20; our mental development never ends. So by your definition, all humans are fair game to be aborted whenever.

 

[no1tovote4]

Ah, so you admit it's a human life in development.

But in development means incomplete. It's potential is when complete.

No, it means in development, just like an infant, toddler, child, pre-teen, teen, young adult, etc.

And on the developmental path, there are milestones, and at some milestones, we can say that this is now a human being.

How do we distinguish the human from other animals? What makes us "most" different? Our brain. When does the most human aspect of our brain, the cerebellum, begin to develop? at 6 months, and it continues for over two years.

My contention is that before that part of the brain begins to develop, we have not much more than a mass of tissue.

Regards


Andy

Your assumption that one milestone on the path of the development of the human life after it is created at conception is more important than another is wrong.

That would be like saying the steering wheel is more important to a car than the engine. Neither is more important because without either you cannot drive it.

Each part of the development of that offspring is just as important as the next to the human life created at that moment.

 

[dilloduck]

No, not contempt for human life, contempt for the belief that a zygote is a human being. it's a potential one, but not one yet.


A

contempt for a belief? Certainly you have reason for such a strong emotion in a scientific debate. What is it and why?

 

[CivilLiberty]

That would be like saying the steering wheel is more important to a car than the engine. Neither is more important because without either you cannot drive it.

That's right - without a steering wheel and an engine (and wheels etc etc), you don't have a car, just some car parts.

Without a cerebellum, you don't have a human.


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

contempt for a belief? Certainly you have reason for such a strong emotion in a scientific debate. What is it and why?

Because as a religious belief it is not part of a scientific debate.


A

 

[no1tovote4]

That's right - without a steering wheel and an engine (and wheels etc etc), you don't have a car, just some car parts.

Without a cerebellum, you don't have a human.


Andy

That would be incorrect. Without the steering wheel you still have a car, just not one you can drive yet. Throwing out a car on the assembly line because the steering wheel hasn't been installed yet doesn't change the fact that you have thrown out a car.