Bull Ring A Human Fetus is a Child; Chuz Life vs JoeB131

[Chuz Life]

I (Chuz Life) herby challenge USMB member JoeB131 to a One on One debate on the subject of whether or not a human being in the fetal stage of their life, growth and development is a "child."

JoeB131 If you are willing to accept this debate, answer with a response and let's discuss and agree on the format, judges and moderation to be used.

This thread is in the Bull Ring and posts from anyone other than a mod, myself or JoeB131 will be reported and then asked to be removed.

If other members wish to discuss this debate, please do so in the discussion threadl JoeB131, I'm calling you out on your claim that a human fetus is NOT a Child!

 

[JoeB131]

I (Chuz Life) herby challenge USMB member JoeB131 to a One on One debate on the subject of whether or not a human being in the fetal stage of their life, growth and development is a "child."

JoeB131 If you are willing to accept this debate, answer with a response and let's discuss and agree on the format, judges and moderation to be used.

This thread is in the Bull Ring and posts from anyone other than a mod, myself or JoeB131 will be reported and then asked to be removed.

If other members wish to discuss this debate, please do so in the discussion threadl JoeB131, I'm calling you out on your claim that a human fetus is NOT a Child!

You are perfectly free to think it's a child.
I'm perfectly free to think it isn't.

Our opinions don't really matter, since neither of us has a uterus.

See, that was easy.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

This is the Bull Ring! JoeB131 and Chuz Life are the ONLY 2 members that are to post in this thread. Read the first post!

 

[Chuz Life]

I (Chuz Life) herby challenge USMB member JoeB131 to a One on One debate on the subject of whether or not a human being in the fetal stage of their life, growth and development is a "child."

JoeB131 If you are willing to accept this debate, answer with a response and let's discuss and agree on the format, judges and moderation to be used.

This thread is in the Bull Ring and posts from anyone other than a mod, myself or JoeB131 will be reported and then asked to be removed.

If other members wish to discuss this debate, please do so in the discussion threadl JoeB131, I'm calling you out on your claim that a human fetus is NOT a Child!

You are perfectly free to think it's a child.
I'm perfectly free to think it isn't.

Our opinions don't really matter, since neither of us has a uterus.

See, that was easy.

This not a debate about beliefs.

This is a debate about facts.

When you claim (as you have in numerous posts) that a human fetus is not a child or not a person, you are not proclaiming it as your opinion or belief.

You have been TRYING to pass it off as fact.

So, let's put our opinions and beliefs aside and debate the facts.

 

[JoeB131]

This not a debate about beliefs.

This is a debate about facts.

When you claim (as you have in numerous posts) that a human fetus is not a child or not a person, you are not proclaiming it as your opinion or belief.

You have been TRYING to pass it off as fact.

So, let's put our opinions and beliefs aside debate the facts.

Okay, we don't charge abortions as murder. (We didn't even do this when abortion was illegal)

We don't investigate miscarriages as potential homicides. We'd have a lot of busy cops if we did.

We don't list a person's beginning of life as his conception day, we list it as his birth day.

So you can go on with all the lame Nazi analogies or talk about genetics that you want, but the reality is, we've never treated fetuses as people and it would be kind of legal chaos if we did.

It would literally mean a fetus would have to have more rights than the woman it is inside.

 

[JoeB131]

Let's expand on that. Fetuses are now people. This means that women can be charged with a crime when they smoke or drink during a pregnancy, because that effects fetal development. heck, you can charge her with a crime for not eating the right kind of foods.

It means you can COMPEL a woman to have her rapist's baby. After all, we don't execute people for crimes their parents commit.

10% of pregnancies end in miscarriages. Now that fetuses are "people', that means every last one of them has to be treated like a potential homicide. (On top of the hundreds of thousands of abortions people will have no matter what your laws say). Throw medical privacy out the window, your confidential medical records are now evidence!

 

[Chuz Life]

Let's expand on that. Fetuses are now people. This means that women can be charged with a crime when they smoke or drink during a pregnancy, because that effects fetal development. heck, you can charge her with a crime for not eating the right kind of foods.

It means you can COMPEL a woman to have her rapist's baby. After all, we don't execute people for crimes their parents commit.

10% of pregnancies end in miscarriages. Now that fetuses are "people', that means every last one of them has to be treated like a potential homicide. (On top of the hundreds of thousands of abortions people will have no matter what your laws say). Throw medical privacy out the window, your confidential medical records are now evidence!

JoeB131, it looks like you are trying to argue that a child is not a child, unless and until the recognition of them as a child is not problematic to others.

Is that actually the basis for your claim?

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB131, it looks like you are trying to argue that a child is not a child, unless and until the recognition of them as a child is not problematic to others.

Is that actually the basis for your claim?

3000 years of western law.

Accepted practices of medical professionals.

Common sense.

 

[Chuz Life]

JoeB131, it looks like you are trying to argue that a child is not a child, unless and until the recognition of them as a child is not problematic to others.

Is that actually the basis for your claim?

3000 years of western law.

Accepted practices of medical professionals.

Common sense.

So. . .

1. Laws are Not infallible and yours is an appeal to tradition

2. Not even close to being completely accepted

3. Common sense does not allow for a total rejection of scientific facts.

 

[JoeB131]

So. . .

1. Not infallible and appeal to tradition
2. Not even close to being completely accepted
3. Common sense does not allow for a total rejection of scientific fact

Guy, you don't have a "scientific fact", you have an appeal to emotion...

Fetuses aren't viable.

We don't count a person's life starting the day he was conceived, we count it the day he was born.

But as I've said many times, unless you have a uterus, what you think doesn't matter all that much.

 

[Chuz Life]

So. . .

1. Not infallible and appeal to tradition
2. Not even close to being completely accepted
3. Common sense does not allow for a total rejection of scientific fact

Guy, you don't have a "scientific fact", you have an appeal to emotion...

Fetuses aren't viable.

We don't count a person's life starting the day he was conceived, we count it the day he was born.

But as I've said many times, unless you have a uterus, what you think doesn't matter all that much.

LoL.

Your false accusation does give me some pause to laugh. However, that being said, I Don t factor emotions into my arguments at all. Far from it.

Besides, I have not even began to submit the evidence that I use to draw the conclusion of the fact that a child in the fetal stage of their life is a "child."

I want to better understand the basis for your claims (since you decided to go first) before I give mine.

When I do provide the evidence that supports my conclusion. . . I am confident that most (if not all) will agree that it is not a conclusion based on emotion. Neither are my conclusions based upon religion.

 

[JoeB131]

Besides, I have not even began to submit the evidence that I use to draw the conclusion of the fact that a child in the fetal stage of their life is a "child."

Yes, it will be all the same tired stuff we heard before about unique genetics and heart beats and souls... None of which means anything if the woman it is in decides she doesn't want to go along with it.

I want to better understand the basis for your claims (since you decided to go first) before I give mine.

When I do provide the evidence that supports my conclusion. . . I am confident that most (if not all) will agree that it is not a conclusion based on emotion. Neither are my conclusions based upon religion.

Guy, you can go on all day... but it won't really matter. You don't have a uterus. What you think doesn't really matter.

 

[Chuz Life]

Besides, I have not even began to submit the evidence that I use to draw the conclusion of the fact that a child in the fetal stage of their life is a "child."

Yes, it will be all the same tired stuff we heard before about unique genetics and heart beats and souls... None of which means anything if the woman it is in decides she doesn't want to go along with it.

Strike one, two and three.

I do not use any of those three in my determinations, at all.

Your comment tells me that you have not actually read or even especially considered ANY of my arguments in the past.

Guy, you can go on all day... but it won't really matter. You don't have a uterus. What you think doesn't really matter.

Funny, the Supreme Court did not use or consider THAT argument, when they were deciding Roe.

Isn't it?

Quite the Contrary.

When the Supreme Court was deciding Roe, they said "if a State were to establish that an unborn fetus is a "person, the arguments in favor of an abortion becomes near impossible to make." To which, even the pro-abortion lawyer (Sarah Weddington who has/had a uterus of her own) actually agreed.



So, you see.

It does matter if a child in the womb is recognized as a "child" (person,) whether I have a uterus or not.

 

[JoeB131]

Strike one, two and three.

I do not use any of those three in my determinations, at all.

Your comment tells me that you have not actually read or even especially considered ANY of my arguments in the past.

It's all the same boring, misogynistic arguments... and they're silly.

unny, the Supreme Court did not use or consider THAT argument, when they were deciding Roe.

Isn't it?

Quite the Contrary.

The problem is, when you guys make this argument, you ignore the companion decision of Doe v. Boland, issued the same day, which allowed for abortion under ANY circumstances if the Doctor determined it was necessary, even for her mental health.

Fetuses still aren't people.

 

[Chuz Life]

Strike one, two and three.

I do not use any of those three in my determinations, at all.

Your comment tells me that you have not actually read or even especially considered ANY of my arguments in the past.

It's all the same boring, misogynistic arguments... and they're silly.

Appeal to Ridicule noted

Funny, the Supreme Court did not use or consider THAT argument, when they were deciding Roe.

Isn't it?

Quite the Contrary.

The problem is, when you guys make this argument, you ignore the companion decision of Doe v. Boland, issued the same day, which allowed for abortion under ANY circumstances if the Doctor determined it was necessary, even for her mental health.

So now you are citing the very rulings (and court decisions) that are being challenged as authorities unto themself?

Appeal to Authority fallacy noted.

Fetuses still aren't people.

Oh but they are people.

Your denials not withstanding.

How about this. . .

Instead of an out and out debate, I wish that I could get you to agree to a Q&A discussion / interview of sorts JoeB131. This has hardly been a structured debate with anything close to a debate format, anyway.

Do you have the courage of your convictions to answer some direct questions that I believe will lead you to agree that a child in the fetal stage of their life is a person? Joe?

 

[JoeB131]

So now you are citing the very rulings (and court decisions) that are being challenged as authorities unto themself?

Dude, did you want to have a discussion, or do you want to act like a middle schooler using lame debate tactics...

The REALITY is the court knew that the abortion laws that Doe and Roe overturned were routinely ignored, rarely enforced and unworkable. That's why FIVE Republicans joined 2 democrats to overturn them. That's why Republican justices ever since have upheld Roe.

How about this. . .

Instead of an out and out debate, I wish that I could get you to agree to a Q&A discussion / interview of sorts JoeB131. This has hardly been a structured debate with anything close to a debate format, anyway.

Well, you can't have structured debates with religious people. Religious people always think "God" is on their side, so they are always right.

Here's the reality. If a woman DOESN'T WANT TO BE PREGNANT... we will find a way to NOT BE PREGNANT. This is why I brought up the Philippines, a country run by religious nuts, who have the exact kinds of laws you want, and they have failed utterly at getting the results you want.

Do you have the courage of your convictions to answer some direct questions that I believe will lead you to agree that a child in the fetal stage of their life is a person? Joe?

No. Don't waste my time.

I had to tolerate the Catholic Propaganda BS for 12 years, with all sorts of gross pictures of medical waste they used to guilt us into their religious nonsense....

And you know what happened? When Little Timmy knocked up Little Kathy, mommy still took her to an abortion Clinic, and problems were taken care of.

Frankly, a Theocratic Police State where we are playing out the live version of "A Handmaid's Tale" isn't one I want to live in. Certainly not for a fetus the size of a Kidney bean.

 

[Chuz Life]

Fucking funny.

I'm not religious.

I am tired though and I will pick this up later.

 

[JoeB131]

Fucking funny.

I'm not religious.

I am tired though and I will pick this up later.

Sure you aren't...

You just put faith over pragmatic morality.

"The world is full of scoundrels and fanatics... but you can reason with a scoundrel". - Voltaire

Or here's a better one.

"A fanatic is one who redoubles his effort while losing sight of his goal." - George Santayana

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm on my phone and don't have much time. JoeB131 you seem to want to drag a lot of things into this debate / discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not not a child in the fetal stage of their life is actually a child (human being / person).

Can we please stick to that one aspect without dragging all the other shit into it?

I might even agree on some if the other sidebar things you mentioned. . . But they don't have anything at all to do with whether or not a child in the fetal stage of their life is a child.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm on my phone and don't have much time. JoeB131 you seem to want to drag a lot of things into this debate / discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not not a child in the fetal stage of their life is actually a child (human being / person).

Can we please stick to that one aspect without dragging all the other shit into it?

I might even agree on some if the other sidebar things you mentioned. . . But they don't have anything at all to do with whether or not a child in the fetal stage of their life is a child.

We've been over that.

Not viable. Can't survive on it's own. size of a kidney bean.

Not a person. Not a child.

On a personal level, I think a lot of women (like that Asian chick I used to know) have abortions for stupid reasons. But you know what, a world where a woman has less rights than a kidney-bean sized blob inside of her is not one that I'd feel comfortable living in.