Zone1 Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy

[Hafar1014]

Incorrect. At every point along the continuum it is fully human possessing the appropriate attributes for that stage of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

If you are threatened and have to take a life I would hope you would feel bad about it rather than justifying it as good and moral.

An act can be moral but necessary that doesnt mean one feels good about it. Havent you had any life experience. You think as if you are a child.

Humans develop through stages. Your statement is self contradictory. You said every point of the continuum. That implies we change as life goes on. Not all have what you call appropriate attributes. The flaw in your thinking is that its categorical without context and you have an over simplistic view of what human means.

 

[Eman623]

It's the essence of the word "person." "Human being" connotates a non-specific "person." "Person" connotates a specific "human being."

It connotes a lot more than that.

 

[Eman623]

How so?

Your self-serving definition of person for example.

 

[Hafar1014]

It connotes a lot more than that.

Person implies individual
A person is an individual human being, characterized by consciousness, rationality, and, in legal contexts, as a subject of rights and responsibilities. Derived from the Latin persona (originally meaning an actor's mask), it refers to a man, woman, or child. It denotes a living being, often distinguished from things or animals.

Key definitions and contexts include:

• Individual Human: A single human being, often used in contrast to "people" (plural).

 

[schmidlap]

A microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is not a person.

The State should not be allowed to seize control of a womb, neither to proscribe, nor to prescribe, in such a personal matter.

Personal morality pertains in exercising personal freedom,

An imposition of governmental dictate is immoral in such a personal matter.

 

[schmidlap]

Of course, this board is ripe with people who spew fallacies as a debate go-to, but I challenge anyone to stay on topic and discuss the issue without becoming hyperbolic, emotional, or political.

My stance is clear, on many fronts (and you can take on any of them:

1. Scientific: We know that once a sperm and egg unite, they create a unique human life with it's own DNA that is separate from the mother. So it has nothing directly to do with the body of the mother. The mother is a nourisher and supporter of the life inside her, and is performing a woman's superpower, something men cannot do.

2. Philosophic: We are trying to determine the value of a human life, when it begins, what a "person" is. The bottom line is that nobody can say for certain. We've seen horrible atrocities occur when human life is devalued by dictators. The creation of a human life is the ultimate value, and the beginning of the process of a unique being's journey towards it's full complete journey through birth, growing as a child, through teens, and into generally a complete adult by age 23-25.

3. Religious: God loves us, and the teachings are clear He does not approve of us deciding to kill his creations in this way.


I've yet to hear a convincing argument from pro-abortionists, as they
1. ignore the proponents I listed
2. attempt to turn it into some sort of battle of the sexes (despite the gigantic bloc of women who oppose abortion), only focusing on the "inconvenience" placed on the mother, and how it's unfair. If a pro-abortionist would like to add more
3. Dehumanize the fetus despite its' scientific realities and it's philosophical capital.

I invite anyone who can handle a low intensity and high content debate to reply. If we get angry pro-abortionists invading with fallacies, I'll simply point them out and move on.

Pro-choice is neither pro-abortion nor anti-abortion.

 

[schmidlap]

To surrender personal control of one's reproductive system to the State is to sanction impersonal bureaucrats and politicians requiring as well as prohibiting abortion.

Safeguard personal freedom.

Resist the statists

 

[Mr. Friscus]

No one is asking you to go down that road. It does not follow naturally that if you believe a newly fertilized ovum is not a person then you will inevitably be gassing born and raised adult people and shoving them into ovens.

This kind of ludicrous slippery slope argument in unconvincing.

Well it's not a slippery slope argument, from your view it's either all or nothing. But sometimes we come to realize things are pretty unambiguous.

What is your argument as far as the scientific growth and philosophic value of the new unique life? Who gets to decide when a life suddenly becomes no longer expendable based on the convenience of other humans?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

To surrender personal control of one's reproductive system to the State is to sanction impersonal bureaucrats and politicians requiring as well as prohibiting abortion.

Safeguard personal freedom.

Resist the statists

A life you created through your own actions > your personal control of anything. All that happened was the human body of 2 humans functioned normally, and they created a new life.

The personal freedom is for the new life. The statists are those in government who allow murder.

 

[BackAgain]

Youve gone off the rails. A Zygote is no more or less human than any cell in your body

Wrong.

A cell scraped off the inside of one of my cheeks will have my DNA.

A zygote produced by the hounded of one of my spermatozoa with a woman’s ovum has its own unique and entirely human genetic code.

Thus, a zygote inside its maternal womb will have a genetic code unlike any of its mother’s cells.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Nope. I'm mocking that kind of intrusive government. I'm particularly mocking Republicans, because they pretend to oppose that crap. But they don't.

Well it’s not oppose all government or love all government.. what a silly premise.

And as far as government being “intrusive” on the right to life.. I’d say that’s where it ought to be.

 

[Eman623]

Well it's not a slippery slope argument, from your view it's either all or nothing. But sometimes we come to realize things are pretty unambiguous.

My view is not all or nothing. All or nothing characterizes your view more than mine.

Interestingly, the Nazis were both strongly opposed to abortion yet were willing to commit genocide. Not sure how that fits into the slippery slope theory.

What is your argument as far as the scientific growth and philosophic value of the new unique life?

The new unique life begins at conception. Personhood is not a scientific term though. It's a philosophic and ethical term.

Who gets to decide when a life suddenly becomes no longer expendable based on the convenience of other humans?

In democracies, the voters decide. I would never try to claim the power to decide for everyone for myself. That's what the fringes on both sides do. They feel they have the correct morality to decide for everyone what will be.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

In democracies, the voters decide. I would never try to claim the power to decide for everyone for myself. That's what the fringes on both sides do. They feel they have the correct morality to decide for everyone what will be.

how do you explain the countless examples throughout human history of tyrants and governments deciding people are allowed to be murdered? You sound like you’re advocating for mob rule. By your logic, as long as most people want it, it’s what should be. Is that what you’re stating? (Because if so that’s an anti-American, immoral philosophy)

 

[Mr. Friscus]

A microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is not a person.

The State should not be allowed to seize control of a womb, neither to proscribe, nor to prescribe, in such a personal matter.

Personal morality pertains in exercising personal freedom,

An imposition of governmental dictate is immoral in such a personal matter.

“Seize control of a womb”. Your hyperbole means nothing just FYI. Do you make the same claims and complaints when humans are imprisoned? Are they Being wronged?

 

[Eman623]

how do you explain the countless examples throughout human history of tyrants and governments deciding people are allowed to be murdered? You sound like you’re advocating for mob rule.

I am not. If you think advocating democracy is mob rule, then you have a bigger problem I cannot help you with.

By your logic, as long as most people want it, it’s what should be. Is that what you’re stating? (Because if so that’s an anti-American, immoral philosophy)

You sound like you are saying democracy is anti-Americans and immoral.

 

[dblack]

Well it’s not oppose all government or love all government.. what a silly premise.

Ah... The excuse treadmill ... It's different when you do it. Carry on.

And as far as government being “intrusive” on the right to life.. I’d say that’s where it ought to be.

I know you would.

 

[schmidlap]

“Seize control of a womb”. Your hyperbole means nothing just FYI. Do you make the same claims and complaints when humans are imprisoned? Are they Being wronged?

Do you support the State dictating how every, mindless, microscopic amalgam of cells in a womb must be treated, or do you respect an American's right to control her own womb in such cases?

 

[ding]

An act can be moral but necessary that doesnt mean one feels good about it. Havent you had any life experience. You think as if you are a child.

Humans develop through stages. Your statement is self contradictory. You said every point of the continuum. That implies we change as life goes on. Not all have what you call appropriate attributes. The flaw in your thinking is that its categorical without context and you have an over simplistic view of what human means.

I've had enough life experiences to know not to argue against science like you are doing.

 

[ding]

It connotes a lot more than that.

Not at its simplest meaning it doesn't.

 

[ding]

Your self-serving definition of person for example.

How would using the definition of person make me feel better about my position?

I'm not dehumanizing human life so that it's easier to kill them. If you said, abortion ends a human life that has never existed before and will never exist again and you don't care that it does, then we would have nothing further to discuss.

Can you say that? Can you own it? Because that is literally what abortion does.