Zone1 Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy

[Eman623]

LOL.

So, a child is not a child, when the child is only in the zygote, embryo or fetal stage of their life?

Doe a child that is only in the zygote, embryo or fetal stage of their life have biological parents?

I know you think so, but you didn't.

I think "child" is definred as a born but pre-pubescent human being. In any case, "child" is your word, not mine.

If you are not going to talk about what I've actually said as opposed to the lying strawmen you've constructed, then I'll leave you here.

 

[ding]

Not the truth. Your truth. Which no else cares about. We've already covered this.

You aren't equipped for this discussion unless you know the difference between subjective and objective and how it pertains to truth.

Now this is new and interesting. This is not unlike my own position. I don't use quickening as the dividing line, but given the limited science of past times, that was the best they could do to establish enough fetal development that aborting after that point would cross a moral and ethical line.

It's actually not new. It's only new to you. So glad you rely on 200 year old science instead of what every modern embryology textbook teaches today.

So when you say abortion should be a class C misdemeanor, are you suggesting that applies to early term abortions or all abortions. I can understand the former, and even the latter. It's all where you choose to draw the line. Some draw it at birth, which would be consistent with the latter position.

All. Although one would have to be especially barbaric to perform a D&E on a live baby. Unless you see no problem with crushing sculls and pulling off limbs.

Already covered this too.
You surprised me with your historical context. If you want to explore that further, great.
OTOH, If you want to keep asking me why I'm not accepting your projection of guilt, then we're done. Asked and answered, counselor.

So when harm is done to you I hope you have to listen how what they did was really fair.

 

[Chuz Life]

I think "child" is definred as a born but pre-pubescent human being. In any case, "child" is your word, not mine.

If you are not going to talk about what I've actually said as opposed to the lying strawmen you've constructed, then I'll leave you here.

You can leave anytime.

You are not needed for me to keep shining some light on the ignorance and denials of your posted remarks.

Though I wish you or anyone on your side of this issue could just once think beyond semantics.

 

[Chuz Life]

They have to assign intent to life to keep their position.

That's a new take or one I haven't seen.

Please expound.

 

[Eman623]

You aren't equipped for this discussion unless you know the difference between subjective and objective and how it pertains to truth.

I know the difference between objective and subjective truth. You on the other hand...,

It's actually not new. It's only new to you. So glad you rely on 200 year old science instead of what every modern embryology textbook teaches today.

You don't get it, do you? Even 200 years ago they understood the principle of acquired personhood, even if they didn't call it that.

All. Although one would have to be especially barbaric to perform a D&E on a live baby. Unless you see no problem with crushing sculls and pulling off limbs.

I'm concerned you would even question whether I would be okay with that. It casts into doubt whether you are able to comprehend my position or are just spitting talking points like some poorly programmed AI engine.

I have grave doubts now whether this conversation is even worth continuing.

 

[Eman623]

You can leave anytime.

You are not needed for me to keep shining some light on the ignorance and denials of your posted remarks.

Though I wish you or anyone on your side of this issue could just once think beyond semantics.

Says the guy who uses semantics like "child" to construct lying strawmen.

But you are correct. We're just going in circles here.

I'll give you the last word.

 

[ding]

I know the difference between objective and subjective truth. You on the other hand...,

What is the difference? What is the thing that makes something subjective or objective? It's literally a one word answer.

You don't get it, do you? Even 200 years ago they understood the principle of acquired personhood, even if they didn't call it that.

No. They didn't. Two hundred years ago (early 19th century), the "quickening"—the moment a pregnant person first felt fetal movement, usually around the fourth or fifth month—was used as the legal and social guide for abortions because it was considered the first, and often only, definitive sign of life. Before this point, abortion was generally legal, socially acceptable, and considered a way to "restore menses" rather than terminate a life.

I'm concerned you would even question whether I would be okay with that. It casts into doubt whether you are able to comprehend my position or are just spitting talking points like some poorly programmed AI engine.

I have grave doubts now whether this conversation is even worth continuing.

I understand you position completely. Rather than using the scientific definition for when life definitively begins, you have chosen an arbitrary and capricious definition which cannot be know with any certainty.

 

[Chuz Life]

Says the guy who uses semantics like "child" to construct lying strawmen.

But you are correct. We're just going in circles here.

I'll give you the last word.

This is another example of the ignorance in your posts that I mentioned earlier.

You were provided the links and a lot of arguments that support the biological fact that a "child in the womb" is a child - while - they are in the womb.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

That's a new take or one I haven't seen.

Please expound.

They’ll say if the woman wanted the child in her womb, others killing it is immoral. But if the woman didn’t want the child, then killing it isn’t immoral.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

A person must be an individual. A fetus is not an indivdual. There must be selfawareness

Someone in a coma isn’t self-aware. So you’d be fine with slaughtering them?

 

[Chuz Life]

They’ll say if the woman wanted the child in her womb, others killing it is immoral. But if the woman didn’t want the child, then killing it isn’t immoral.

Thanks.

I don't argue the moral aspects.

That's probably (partly) why I didn't get it at first.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Thanks.

I don't argue the moral aspects.

That's probably (partly) why I didn't get it at first.

Indeed. The problem there for them is that life is life no matter what intent is involved.

 

[Chuz Life]

Someone in a coma isn’t self-aware. So you’d be fine with slaughtering them?

LOL, and self-awareness isn't even a requirement for "individualism."

Jeeebus, the lengths these guys go to maintain their denials are astounding.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" More All Out Rage Ignores Relativity In Nature And Demands Anthropocentric Psychosis "

* Logically Of Course Live Birth Instantiates Equal Protection With A Citizen *

Someone in a coma isn’t self-aware. So you’d be fine with slaughtering them?

An individual which has completed live birth is entitled to equal protection and due process that sometimes includes disposition of terminal vegetative states by the legal system .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Fetus Is Not A Legal Victim And Females Are Not Persons - Both Countable By Census And Males "

* Legal Positivism Designates Crimes Against Victims *

They’ll say if the woman wanted the child in her womb, others killing it is immoral. But if the woman didn’t want the child, then killing it isn’t immoral.

Has the meaning of a victimless crime been considered , in the context of indifference in nature for cruelty , such that legal contexts stipulate an instantiation of citizenship and equal protections both include a non incidental requirement for live birth ?

There are ethical dilemmas when actual sentience exists whereby empathy for suffering could be argued in lieu of live birth requirement as a valid basis for representation by proxy , however the onset of sentience is nearly coincident with an onset of natural viability which is estimated to begin in the 3rd trimester , while 3rd trimester abortion as always with cause due to developmental anomalies , rather than without cause as a lack for intent , or as a ritual of malice .

The anthropocentric psychosis blubbering of apex predator damned dirty apes who are wielding carnal knowledge of carnivorous canines and seeking exception from a universal scale of exploitation remain preposterous sycophants , and conceited vanity of pretentious arrogance of those seeking a uniform fetish for satiating an anxiety over mortality needs to rectify its perspectives about the reality of nature and the literal meaning of an after life .

 

[Eman623]

What is the difference? What is the thing that makes something subjective or objective? It's literally a one word answer.

Provability.

No. They didn't. Two hundred years ago (early 19th century), the "quickening"—the moment a pregnant person first felt fetal movement, usually around the fourth or fifth month—was used as the legal and social guide for abortions because it was considered the first, and often only, definitive sign of life. Before this point, abortion was generally legal, socially acceptable, and considered a way to "restore menses" rather than terminate a life.

NO NEED TO SHOUT. DO YOU HAVE A LINK TO THAT?

I understand you position completely. Rather than using the scientific definition for when life definitively begins, you have chosen an arbitrary and capricious definition which cannot be know with any certainty.

Nope. You do not understand my position at all.

 

[Chuz Life]

" Fetus Is Not A Legal Victim And Females Are Not Persons - Both Countable By Census And Males "

* Legal Positivism Designates Crimes Against Victims *

Has the meaning of a victimless crime been considered , in the context of indifference in nature for cruelty , such that legal contexts stipulate an instantiation of citizenship and equal protections both include a non incidental requirement for live birth ?

There are ethical dilemmas when actual sentience exists whereby empathy for suffering could be argued in lieu of live birth requirement as a valid basis for representation by proxy , however the onset of sentience is nearly coincident with an onset of natural viability which is estimated to begin in the 3rd trimester , while 3rd trimester abortion as always with cause due to developmental anomalies , rather than without cause as a lack for intent , or as a ritual of malice .

The anthropocentric psychosis blubbering of apex predator damned dirty apes who are wielding carnal knowledge of carnivorous canines and seeking exception from a universal scale of exploitation remain preposterous sycophants , and conceited vanity of pretentious arrogance of those seeking a uniform fetish for satiating an anxiety over mortality needs to rectify its perspectives about the reality of nature and the literal meaning of an after life .

Deciphering a Philosophical Rant

Shared via Copilot

copilot.microsoft.com

 

[JoeB131]

Then why was Roe allowed to undo almost 200 years of precedent because the SCOTUS had liberal progressive fanatics (RBG anyone?)

Except there was no "legal precedent" prior to Roe. There were a patchwork of laws that were more recent than that, poorly enforced.

Before that, abortions were handled by midwives until male "doctors" took over the practice of women's health.

So you can.. it’s just only hyperbolic when your opposition does it. 50 years of precedent aint much in the big picture. You need it to be, but it isn’t

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

The precedent was set because earlier laws were inconsistent, poorly enforced, and hazardous.

.. with the 12 and 14 week cut offs. You in?

Actually, if the government is paying for it, and you need a doctor's approval to get one after that, I'm actually fine with that.

 

[ding]

Provability.

Incorrect. Do you want to try double or nothing? Or would you like to buy a clue? Or phone a friend?

NO NEED TO SHOUT. DO YOU HAVE A LINK TO THAT?

I wasn't shouting. That would have been using all caps like you just did. I was emphasizing. But sure, here you go.

I'm betting you don't find this "new" information as interesting as you once did in post #821. Especially since the quickening was used to identify when it was living being rather than a person.

Nope. You do not understand my position at all.

Please enlighten me. Because I think I do understand your position. You just didn't like my objective assessment because you are biased which makes you subjective.

 

[Eman623]

Incorrect. Do you want to try double or nothing? Or would you like to buy a clue? Or phone a friend?

No, I'm correct. Provability is what distinguishes fact from opinion.

I wasn't shouting. That would have been using all caps like you just did. I was emphasizing. But sure, here you go.

Thank you. Or rather Thank the AI engine you used.

Please enlighten me. Because I think I do understand your position. You just didn't like my objective assessment because you are biased which makes you subjective.

You don't understand it at all and your incorrect description of it is proof. And no, I'm not going to tell you what it actually is. I've told you my position multiple times. I have no assurance you would understand it if I told you one more time. Or a hundred times.

Bored now. Like Chuz, we're just going in circles now. You can have the last word.