Why Can't the Pro-Choice Crowd Be Honest?

[JBeukema]

All laws are based upon morality.

I'd say traffic laws have more to do with pragmatism

 

[JBeukema]

A cell is an organism.

only if we're specifically discussing single-celled organisms

we are not

we are discussing humans

You sound like the YECs demanding your religion be taught in school because you don't understand what a scientific theory is

Find a real biologist and ask about the differences between cells, tissues, organs, and organisms

Hell, ask about organelles, too

OK. So you meant multi-cell organisms when you wrote organism.

Cool. We have that corrected.

An appendix is a multi-cell organism. It is alive. It is genetically human, if a human appendix.

Now what?






This is where that argument needs more. Human - adjective and noun.

go to your local high school and pick up a biology book.

look up cell->tissue->organ->organism

 

[Ravi]

So, JB I could assume you are against the morning after pill?

Nope. Human life isn't important.

The morning after pill ends a human life, but does not end the existence of a mind- of a person. What matters is the individual, which is the sentient mind regardless of what system (fleshy, digital, or other) it arises from. When that mind ceases to be (the brain or other system from which arises ceases to function), the individual ceases to exist. That is the real death of a person.

If those systems are not yet operational, then the mind cannot have emerged. It does not yet exist and there is, therefore no individual to be harmed through the ending of the life of the system which might have one day given rise to a new mind. Killing a young foetus, then, is like dismantling the internet today. Each system might someday give rise to a new mind- a new individual person- but it has yet to do so. Therefore I cannot harm a non-existent individual by destroying that system.

See: theory of mind; epistemological solipsism

I have no way of knowing whether any of you are human or not. Nor do i really care. What matters is that you appear to me to be other minds. whether you emerge from a fleshy brain, a supercomputer, or some system I cannot even contemplate is irrelevant.

 

[Anguille]

Pro-abortion crowd? Never heard of it.

 

[JBeukema]

so you oppose capital punishment?

Yes. Credit goes to Penn and Teller for laying out the argument that convinced me they were correct in that matter.

We are all murderers now

Barry Scheck: Innocent, but Executed

you disagree with limbaugh when he said it's ok to kill liberals?

I don't recall Limbaugh ever saying anything worth hearing

you were appalled when ann coulter said her biggest regret about 9/11 is the fact that the terrorists didn't kill everyone at the new york times?

My views of coultergeist are scattered across the board

it angers you when other conservatives

care to try again?

I see no reason to waste any more time on your stupidity

 

[Immanuel]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is be definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position






*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.

"If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?"


"It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being."



so you oppose capital punishment? Only when it is used unfairly against minorities. I support Capital Punishment in the most extreme cases. For instance, I think Charles Manson should be pushing up daisies today. The fact is that people like Manson chose to kill. I have yet to hear that an unborn child has chosen to kill anyone.

you disagree with limbaugh when he said it's ok to kill liberals? Absolutely

you were appalled when ann coulter said her biggest regret about 9/11 is the fact that the terrorists didn't kill everyone at the new york times? I never heard her say that, but if she said it, I find it appalling. I've never particularly liked Coulter in the first place.

it angers you when other conservatives talk about sending liberals to third world countries to be murdered? Yes, it does.

you were really offended when palerider suggested a game in which liberals would drive through texas and be murdered by conservatives? Never saw that either. I don't approve of it if he did say it.

and when ex-military guys say "when we discovered a homo in our ranks we took him out and killed him" it really makes you mad? Never saw any of them say that either, however, I would say they should be tried for murder and if heinous enough they should face the death penalty.

and when conservative christian republican lt gen james mattis said "it's FUN to shoot people" you were absolutely appalled? Again, I have not heard this said, but it is appalling that anyone would say that.




you oppose abortion (because all life (except liberals and gays and atheists and muslims) is precious) yet once the child is born it doesn't bother you at all that it lives in poverty and dies at an early age because it didn't have proper medical care Wrong on all counts.

and should it live long enough to become a homeless adult you want it taken out back and shot.... Again wrong.


btw..i still have photos of conservatives carrying signs saying "abort clinton" Those were equally appalling as were the pictures of Bush/Hitler and the pictures of President Obama as a witch doctor. Completely inappropriate.


and how many cons are stockpiling weapons in hopes of a coming civil war in which they will have the joy of killing liberals and democrats.......millions! Do you have a link verifying your statement that there are millions? I find anyone who hopes for a civil war to be traitors and hope they would be taken into custody and prosecuted... then again, what they are thinking is not a crime. If they have done nothing illegal and continue to remain law abiding, I simply find them stupid idiots who don't realize what they have in this great nation.


we can discuss abortion rationally just as soon as conservatives stop talking about slaughtering millions of innocent people For some reason, I don't think some of you are really interested in discussing abortion or the reduction of the number of abortions. It is more about scoring political points than reducing abortions. Now what on earth would give me an idea like that? I have begun to read and respect your posts. You have begun to sound like more than just a troll to me, but I truly think in this post you are more concerned with those political points than you are in reducing the number of abortions. I hope and pray that you will not see us as the enemy, but rather as potential partners in reducing if not ending abortions.

My replies are in bolded red.

Immie

 

[Sheldon]

So, JB I could assume you are against the morning after pill?

Nope. Human life isn't important.

The morning after pill ends a human life, but does not end the existence of a mind- of a person. What matters is the individual, which is the sentient mind regardless of what system (fleshy, digital, or other) it arises from. When that mind ceases to be (the brain or other system from which arises ceases to function), the individual ceases to exist. That is the real death of a person.

If those systems are not yet operational, then the mind cannot have emerged. It does not yet exist and there is, therefore no individual to be harmed through the ending of the life of the system which might have one day given rise to a new mind. Killing a young foetus, then, is like dismantling the internet today. Each system might someday give rise to a new mind- a new individual person- but it has yet to do so. Therefore I cannot harm a non-existent individual by destroying that system.

See: theory of mind; epistemological solipsism

I have no way of knowing whether any of you are human or not. Nor do i really care. What matters is that you appear to me to be other minds. whether you emerge from a fleshy brain, a supercomputer, or some system I cannot even contemplate is irrelevant.

Bwhahaha.

I knew you'd be a solipsist.

Get out more.

 

[Si modo]

only if we're specifically discussing single-celled organisms

we are not

we are discussing humans

You sound like the YECs demanding your religion be taught in school because you don't understand what a scientific theory is

Find a real biologist and ask about the differences between cells, tissues, organs, and organisms

Hell, ask about organelles, too

OK. So you meant multi-cell organisms when you wrote organism.

Cool. We have that corrected.

An appendix is a multi-cell organism. It is alive. It is genetically human, if a human appendix.

Now what?






This is where that argument needs more. Human - adjective and noun.

go to your local high school and pick up a biology book.

look up cell->tissue->organ->organism

I'm quite confident of my knowledge in biology, microbiology, cell biology, metabolism, etc.

Loathing getting personal with you as you have with me, I suggest you take your own suggestion and/or know how to communicate this subject matter properly.

I prefer to stick with facts and will ignore your attempts at insults from this point forward.

Repeating myself, 'human' is both an adjective and noun. To dispense with any confusion, I specifically use 'human' alone as an adjective. When I want to use it as a noun, I use the term 'human being'. Apparently your confusion stems from conflating the two usages. If my pointing that out angers you, I cannot help that. However, concerning the point you made that I quoted, your use of 'human' as an adjective doesn't work.

A blastocyst is human (absolutely correct - a human blastocyst as opposed to an equine blastocyst, for example). Adjective.

A blastocyst is not a human being. Noun.

It is potentially a human being, yes. But it is not a human being just as a cup of flour is not a loaf of bread.

 

[JBeukema]

So, JB I could assume you are against the morning after pill?

Nope. Human life isn't important.

The morning after pill ends a human life, but does not end the existence of a mind- of a person. What matters is the individual, which is the sentient mind regardless of what system (fleshy, digital, or other) it arises from. When that mind ceases to be (the brain or other system from which arises ceases to function), the individual ceases to exist. That is the real death of a person.

If those systems are not yet operational, then the mind cannot have emerged. It does not yet exist and there is, therefore no individual to be harmed through the ending of the life of the system which might have one day given rise to a new mind. Killing a young foetus, then, is like dismantling the internet today. Each system might someday give rise to a new mind- a new individual person- but it has yet to do so. Therefore I cannot harm a non-existent individual by destroying that system.

See: theory of mind; epistemological solipsism

I have no way of knowing whether any of you are human or not. Nor do i really care. What matters is that you appear to me to be other minds. whether you emerge from a fleshy brain, a supercomputer, or some system I cannot even contemplate is irrelevant.

I know, I know, all those big words are just too hard for you


personhood argument abortion - Google Search

 

[JBeukema]

You cannot legislate morality. Do you honestly believe if Planned Parenthood were shut down, that abortions would end? What WOULD end is the lives of a lot more young women.

Also, as I read your post, I could find things I agree with, but when you called pro choice people pro abortion, you lost credibility. NO ONE is pro abortion.

You can't?

All laws are based upon morality.

Immie

Do you believe making abortion a crime will stop abortions?

Do you intend to argue that x should be legal because criminalizing x doesn't eliminate all instances of x?

 

[Immanuel]

You cannot legislate morality. Do you honestly believe if Planned Parenthood were shut down, that abortions would end? What WOULD end is the lives of a lot more young women.

Also, as I read your post, I could find things I agree with, but when you called pro choice people pro abortion, you lost credibility. NO ONE is pro abortion.

You can't?

All laws are based upon morality.

Immie

Do you believe making abortion a crime will stop abortions? Would you prosecute women that have an abortion as murderers? What about the male, should he be prosecuted?

There are numerous moral issues I will throw at you if you tell me we should make abortion a crime.

I have stated my opinion on over turning Roe many times. I think even in this thread today, although, maybe it was the like minded copy of this one but reversed. It will do nothing at all to reduce the number of abortions, therefore, it is not on my list of priorities.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

All laws are based upon morality.

I'd say traffic laws have more to do with pragmatism

I would not. Traffic laws are based upon morality. Someone thinks it is immoral for me to run through a traffic light and risk injuring or killing other human beings. Thus we have laws that attempt to stop people from running red lights. Ditto on speed. Ditto on legalizing MJ. Seat belts are because people think that it is immoral for me to drive without a seat belt and risk injuring myself and the government having to pay for my medical services. Ultimately, all laws are based upon someone's idea of morality. There are, of course, other reasons such as pragmatism, but ultimately all laws are based on morality even Income Tax Laws.

Immie

 

[Sheldon]

OK. So you meant multi-cell organisms when you wrote organism.

Cool. We have that corrected.

An appendix is a multi-cell organism. It is alive. It is genetically human, if a human appendix.

Now what?






This is where that argument needs more. Human - adjective and noun.

go to your local high school and pick up a biology book.

look up cell->tissue->organ->organism

I'm quite confident of my knowledge in biology, microbiology, cell biology, metabolism, etc.

Loathing getting personal with you as you have with me, I suggest you take your own suggestion and/or know how to communicate this subject matter properly.

I prefer to stick with facts and will ignore your attempts at insults from this point forward.

Repeating myself, 'human' is both an adjective and noun. To dispense with any confusion, I specifically use 'human' alone as an adjective. When I want to use it as a noun, I use the term 'human being'. Apparently your confusion stems from conflating the two usages. If my pointing that out angers you, I cannot help that. However, concerning the point you made that I quoted, your use of 'human' as an adjective doesn't work.

A blastocyst is human (absolutely correct - a human blastocyst as opposed to an equine blastocyst, for example). Adjective.

A blastocyst is not a human being. Noun.

It is potentially a human being, yes. But it is not a human being just as a cup of flour is not a loaf of bread.

It can't get much more cut and dry than that. Maybe the ninth time will be a charm.

 

[G.T.]

I think that it's dis-honest, or at least smug to call anyone "pro abortion," so starting a dialogue from that sort of tone expecting honesty/being forthright? I dunno man.

 

[Bfgrn]

You can't?

All laws are based upon morality.

Immie

Do you believe making abortion a crime will stop abortions?

Do you intend to argue that x should be legal because criminalizing x doesn't eliminate all instances of x?

If you want to criminalize abortion, would you prosecute a young girl who has an abortion for murder? What degree? Would you prosecute the male who impregnated her?

 

[JBeukema]

All laws are based upon morality.

I'd say traffic laws have more to do with pragmatism

I would not. Traffic laws are based upon morality. Someone thinks it is immoral for me to run through a traffic light and risk injuring or killing other human beings.

The act of running the light couldn't be objectionable until the light and its meaning were established thorugh the social contract for pragmatic reasons. Only then could moral judgements of the risks entailed in breaking that social contract be levied.

Even murder laws can emerge in an amoral system/manner as a manifestation of mutual self-interest.

I don't deny that morality is a factor in determining societal ethics. I simply mean to point out that it is not the only factor.

 

[JBeukema]

go to your local high school and pick up a biology book.

look up cell->tissue->organ->organism

I'm quite confident of my knowledge in biology, microbiology, cell biology, metabolism, etc.

Loathing getting personal with you as you have with me, I suggest you take your own suggestion and/or know how to communicate this subject matter properly.

I prefer to stick with facts and will ignore your attempts at insults from this point forward.

Repeating myself, 'human' is both an adjective and noun. To dispense with any confusion, I specifically use 'human' alone as an adjective. When I want to use it as a noun, I use the term 'human being'. Apparently your confusion stems from conflating the two usages. If my pointing that out angers you, I cannot help that. However, concerning the point you made that I quoted, your use of 'human' as an adjective doesn't work.

A blastocyst is human (absolutely correct - a human blastocyst as opposed to an equine blastocyst, for example). Adjective.

A blastocyst is not a human being. Noun.

It is potentially a human being, yes. But it is not a human being just as a cup of flour is not a loaf of bread.

It can't get much more cut and dry than that. Maybe the ninth time will be a charm.

The sperm can be compared to flour, perhaps. By the time we have a blastocyst, there's nothing 'incomplete' about the matter. The child exists and is developing as it will (barring any unforeseens) for many years before dying.

 

[Immanuel]

I'd say traffic laws have more to do with pragmatism

I would not. Traffic laws are based upon morality. Someone thinks it is immoral for me to run through a traffic light and risk injuring or killing other human beings.

The act of running the light couldn't be objectionable until the light and its meaning were established thorugh the social contract for pragmatic reasons. Only then could moral judgements of the risks entailed in breaking that social contract be levied.

Even murder laws can emerge in an amoral system/manner as a manifestation of mutual self-interest.

I don't deny that morality is a factor in determining societal ethics. I simply mean to point out that it is not the only factor.

I would agree with you there, but then, I never said it was the only reason.

Immie

 

[JBeukema]

Do you believe making abortion a crime will stop abortions?

Do you intend to argue that x should be legal because criminalizing x doesn't eliminate all instances of x?

If you want to criminalize abortion, would you prosecute a young girl who has an abortion for murder? What degree? Would you prosecute the male who impregnated her?

Methinks a manslaughter charge would be more probable. The entire system of first-, second-, and third-degree murder and manslaughter is, in my opinion, a complex system that emerges primarily as a compromise between society's varying views of how various acts of homicide should be punished. That particular question is one I'm not sure I can answer. How can we know what's best for society as a whole in this regard? I am very much open to input, opinion, and debate on that detail.

 

[Si modo]

I'm quite confident of my knowledge in biology, microbiology, cell biology, metabolism, etc.

Loathing getting personal with you as you have with me, I suggest you take your own suggestion and/or know how to communicate this subject matter properly.

I prefer to stick with facts and will ignore your attempts at insults from this point forward.

Repeating myself, 'human' is both an adjective and noun. To dispense with any confusion, I specifically use 'human' alone as an adjective. When I want to use it as a noun, I use the term 'human being'. Apparently your confusion stems from conflating the two usages. If my pointing that out angers you, I cannot help that. However, concerning the point you made that I quoted, your use of 'human' as an adjective doesn't work.

A blastocyst is human (absolutely correct - a human blastocyst as opposed to an equine blastocyst, for example). Adjective.

A blastocyst is not a human being. Noun.

It is potentially a human being, yes. But it is not a human being just as a cup of flour is not a loaf of bread.

It can't get much more cut and dry than that. Maybe the ninth time will be a charm.

The sperm can be compared to flour, perhaps. By the time we have a blastocyst, there's nothing 'incomplete' about the matter. The child exists and is developing as it will (barring any unforeseens) for many years before dying.

Point taken.

A blastocyst is not a human being just as cake batter is not a cake.