The abortion issue troubles me mightily

[Chuz Life]

Prove it.

I’ll prove it but first you must look up “what is an appeal to ignorance”.

I'll look that up after you prove it.

I’ll do it for you.
“Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).”

And by your standard since we don’t remember our years as a toddler, it’s perfectly fine to kill a toddler right? Since they are soulless?

I think you are being trolled.

That or it’s really just a 8 year old who doesn’t know any better. I’m definitely suspecting that.

Even if that's the case, how much can an 8 year old mind really learn from you? I just think they are trying to get you to say something (anything) they can twist around and use against you.

There is no desire to learn anything coming across from their posts.

 

[sakinago]

I’ll prove it but first you must look up “what is an appeal to ignorance”.

I'll look that up after you prove it.

I’ll do it for you.
“Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).”

And by your standard since we don’t remember our years as a toddler, it’s perfectly fine to kill a toddler right? Since they are soulless?

I think you are being trolled.

That or it’s really just a 8 year old who doesn’t know any better. I’m definitely suspecting that.

Even if that's the case, how much can an 8 year old mind really learn from you? I just think they are trying to get you to say something (anything) they can twistbaround and use against you.

There is no desire to learn anything coming across from their posts.

Well I think I’m pretty consistent/consistent enough with my beliefs that I don’t really have to worry about that.

 

[MPS777]

I just did a little research into the Terri Schiavo and I didn’t see any reference to an 85% chance of full recovery. Is it even legal to pull the plug at those odds? No, I wouldn’t pull the plug.

No that wasn’t the case with her, I said it was a hypothetical and changed the names from terry to Sherry Taivo. But what if the doctor said “ as of now, 40% odds she’ll make a full recovery, and if she continues to improve, in a month or 2 her odds will jump to 85%” what about then, do you pull the plug?

Of course we could move the probabilities around by varying increments ad infinitum. Then we could mix in various doctors with second opinions ad infinitum. I’m not a doctor or a lawyer, so I’m not going to get stuck in the weeds there. My question is, why is the person who pulled the plug on Terri Schiavo not in jail?

Well I picked these prognosis’s for reason, they’re the same prognosis’s of carrying a baby to term. So why is it wrong in the case our hypothetical sherry to pull the plug, but totally ok to do it with the same prognosis in pregnancy?

First of all, I’ve never said that abortion is always totally ok, you can go back and check the record on that one. But I think one difference is that I don’t think a human being has established their rights until they’ve achieved conscious capacity of some type. A zygote’s never come close.

And I’m going to go back to the burning fertility clinic dilemma, because my honest answer informs my opinion about relative human “worth”. So I consider this:
I’m a firefighter responding to the fire and I find a room. In one corner is a small refrigerator labeled “100 embryos”, and in the other corner is two toddlers. Huddled brother and sister, crying and confused. Even if 10 of those embryos were my own, I’d rescue the toddlers. I bet the various parents of the 90 other embryos would make the same call. A FEELING and THINKING brother and sister, with a family somewhere that loves them. Parents that have poured their hearts and soul into them. Versus what, a bunch of embryos with undifferentiated cells that by scientific definition have never had any free agency. Quite honestly, those have less priority to me than the toddlers, because they don’t matter as much. I wouldn’t really feel bad because I know those embryos never even had remotely the capacity to care. Like empty vessels.

A. A women would never know she was pregnant with a zygote, which is the first stage of the embryonic stage (lasts about 4 days). By the time she knows she’s pregnant, she’s usually out of the embryonic stage. So the whole calling it a zygote is just minimizing. If you’re feeling the need to unjustly minimize something, you’re probably on the wrong track. If not you shouldn’t have to resort to minimizing to help justify this in your mind. This should be telling you something.

B. To answer your question these frozen embryos, aren’t implanted, are suspended, don’t have a mother to raise them yet, don’t have the odds of survival the already formed toddlers do, save the toddlers. Not that hard. Still a tragedy, but not that hard.

C. And your basing your beliefs solely on the fact that you cannot personalize what you refer to as just a clump of cells. Kind of like the box scenario. You can press a button and get 10 million dollars, but someone random around the world dies...a lot of people behind close doors would press the button. It’s because we can’t personalize with them. Or like how we just kind of shrug our shoulders when 60 die in a terrorist attack in Africa, but loose our minds when 5 die in a shooting in America a couple towns away. Life is the standard we set, that “embryo” is human life, just in a different stage. Now you’re playing a game where you’re adding value to some human life over others, would you rather have 5 severely autistic people die, or one super smart scientist? The crazy part is we don’t have to play this game at all. Birth control is the easiest and cheapest it has ever been, there is zero excuse to act irresponsibly and not use any sort of birth control when your participating in the act of reproduction, ZERO. We don’t need to play this game. Draw the line at life, and make people take responsibility for their actions

D. The prognosis’s I gave in my scenarios are for common legal abortions.

A. Life can be cruel and unfair. A woman could be raped, and held captive, then escape after a few days. She might be pregnant and know it. Anyone who has sex knows they might have a zygote in them. I've heard there are tests that can detect a week old embryo. As technology improves, this will only get earlier. And justify what exactly? Are you saying that the few day old blastocyst is morally equivalent to a human being that has existed 48 months since fertilization? If aforementioned woman takes an abortion pill, would you giver her the same punishment as if she premeditatedly murdered an innocent toddler?

>>>”To answer your question these frozen embryos, aren’t implanted, are suspended, don’t have a mother to raise them yet, don’t have the odds of survival the already formed toddlers do, save the toddlers. Not that hard. Still a tragedy, but not that hard.”

Who’s minimizing now? You just said a “soul” popped into each of those 100 embryos at fertilization. Some lives are more important because they have greater “odds of survival”?

>>>”We don’t need to play this game.”

Well if you’re on team “zygote personhood”, the game is just getting started. If you’re saying that the zygote is morally equivalent to human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization you’re going to have to back it with your convictions. If you’re saying they matter equally, then you’re going to have to advance policy positions that would punish ANYONE for the premeditated murder of a zygote just as much as the premeditated murder of a toddler. It’s kind of funny to me, because I’ve always had relatively conservative views about abortion. But this “zygote personhood” movement just seems frankly absurd to me.

 

[sakinago]

No that wasn’t the case with her, I said it was a hypothetical and changed the names from terry to Sherry Taivo. But what if the doctor said “ as of now, 40% odds she’ll make a full recovery, and if she continues to improve, in a month or 2 her odds will jump to 85%” what about then, do you pull the plug?

Of course we could move the probabilities around by varying increments ad infinitum. Then we could mix in various doctors with second opinions ad infinitum. I’m not a doctor or a lawyer, so I’m not going to get stuck in the weeds there. My question is, why is the person who pulled the plug on Terri Schiavo not in jail?

Well I picked these prognosis’s for reason, they’re the same prognosis’s of carrying a baby to term. So why is it wrong in the case our hypothetical sherry to pull the plug, but totally ok to do it with the same prognosis in pregnancy?

First of all, I’ve never said that abortion is always totally ok, you can go back and check the record on that one. But I think one difference is that I don’t think a human being has established their rights until they’ve achieved conscious capacity of some type. A zygote’s never come close.

And I’m going to go back to the burning fertility clinic dilemma, because my honest answer informs my opinion about relative human “worth”. So I consider this:
I’m a firefighter responding to the fire and I find a room. In one corner is a small refrigerator labeled “100 embryos”, and in the other corner is two toddlers. Huddled brother and sister, crying and confused. Even if 10 of those embryos were my own, I’d rescue the toddlers. I bet the various parents of the 90 other embryos would make the same call. A FEELING and THINKING brother and sister, with a family somewhere that loves them. Parents that have poured their hearts and soul into them. Versus what, a bunch of embryos with undifferentiated cells that by scientific definition have never had any free agency. Quite honestly, those have less priority to me than the toddlers, because they don’t matter as much. I wouldn’t really feel bad because I know those embryos never even had remotely the capacity to care. Like empty vessels.

A. A women would never know she was pregnant with a zygote, which is the first stage of the embryonic stage (lasts about 4 days). By the time she knows she’s pregnant, she’s usually out of the embryonic stage. So the whole calling it a zygote is just minimizing. If you’re feeling the need to unjustly minimize something, you’re probably on the wrong track. If not you shouldn’t have to resort to minimizing to help justify this in your mind. This should be telling you something.

B. To answer your question these frozen embryos, aren’t implanted, are suspended, don’t have a mother to raise them yet, don’t have the odds of survival the already formed toddlers do, save the toddlers. Not that hard. Still a tragedy, but not that hard.

C. And your basing your beliefs solely on the fact that you cannot personalize what you refer to as just a clump of cells. Kind of like the box scenario. You can press a button and get 10 million dollars, but someone random around the world dies...a lot of people behind close doors would press the button. It’s because we can’t personalize with them. Or like how we just kind of shrug our shoulders when 60 die in a terrorist attack in Africa, but loose our minds when 5 die in a shooting in America a couple towns away. Life is the standard we set, that “embryo” is human life, just in a different stage. Now you’re playing a game where you’re adding value to some human life over others, would you rather have 5 severely autistic people die, or one super smart scientist? The crazy part is we don’t have to play this game at all. Birth control is the easiest and cheapest it has ever been, there is zero excuse to act irresponsibly and not use any sort of birth control when your participating in the act of reproduction, ZERO. We don’t need to play this game. Draw the line at life, and make people take responsibility for their actions

D. The prognosis’s I gave in my scenarios are for common legal abortions.

A. Life can be cruel and unfair. A woman could be raped, and held captive, then escape after a few days. She might be pregnant and know it. Anyone who has sex knows they might have a zygote in them. I've heard there are tests that can detect a week old embryo. As technology improves, this will only get earlier. And justify what exactly? Are you saying that the few day old blastocyst is morally equivalent to a human being that has existed 48 months since fertilization? If aforementioned woman takes an abortion pill, would you giver her the same punishment as if she premeditatedly murdered an innocent toddler?

>>>”To answer your question these frozen embryos, aren’t implanted, are suspended, don’t have a mother to raise them yet, don’t have the odds of survival the already formed toddlers do, save the toddlers. Not that hard. Still a tragedy, but not that hard.”

Who’s minimizing now? You just said a “soul” popped into each of those 100 embryos at fertilization. Some lives are more important because they have greater “odds of survival”?

>>>”We don’t need to play this game.”

Well if you’re on team “zygote personhood”, the game is just getting started. If you’re saying that the zygote is morally equivalent to human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization you’re going to have to back it with your convictions. If you’re saying they matter equally, then you’re going to have to advance policy positions that would punish ANYONE for the premeditated murder of a zygote just as much as the premeditated murder of a toddler. It’s kind of funny to me, because I’ve always had relatively conservative views about abortion. But this “zygote personhood” movement just seems frankly absurd to me.

Yes and those very very very few cases are tragedy’s. And yes a zygote or blastocyst is equivalent to human life, because it is human life. If you think it’s wrong to kill a butterfly, it’s just a wrong to kill a caterpillar, even though you don’t think it’s as pretty as the butterfly. Life is the only standard we should be looking at, not these abstract words like “personhood” that you could ask 50 different people what their definition is and get 50 different answers. We can’t be basing laws on abstract philosophical terms, especially ones that are honestly nonsensical. We have already solved what is life with science, the only thing that really comes into question is a virus. We’ve already laid out that life is an inalienable self-evident right. You can talk moral equivilents all you want, “what’s worse, killing an old man, or a toddler?” Guess what, they’re both wrong. It’s still not ok to kill.

 

[Taz]

My soul didn't sit around for 9 months in a sack filled with fluid. I would have remembered something like that.

Memory is all in the brain, which is why you can get hit on the head and loose your memory. Your theory on memory is just insane

Prove it.

I’ll prove it but first you must look up “what is an appeal to ignorance”.

I'll look that up after you prove it.

I’ll do it for you.
“Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).”

And by your standard since we don’t remember our years as a toddler, it’s perfectly fine to kill a toddler right? Since they are soulless?

No, but nobody has yet pinpointed the time when a re-incarnated soul (for lack of a better word) re-enters a new body. It could even be that the light that people see when they are dying is them coming out from their new mother's body. Nobody knows, and until then, all possibilities should be on the table.

 

[sakinago]

Memory is all in the brain, which is why you can get hit on the head and loose your memory. Your theory on memory is just insane

Prove it.

I’ll prove it but first you must look up “what is an appeal to ignorance”.

I'll look that up after you prove it.

I’ll do it for you.
“Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).”

And by your standard since we don’t remember our years as a toddler, it’s perfectly fine to kill a toddler right? Since they are soulless?

No, but nobody has yet pinpointed the time when a re-incarnated soul (for lack of a better word) re-enters a new body. It could even be that the light that people see when they are dying is them coming out from their new mother's body. Nobody knows, and until then, all possibilities should be on the table.

But if we don’t remember our early childhood, clearly the soul isn’t present. You even said so yourself in an earlier post.

 

[MPS777]

Of course we could move the probabilities around by varying increments ad infinitum. Then we could mix in various doctors with second opinions ad infinitum. I’m not a doctor or a lawyer, so I’m not going to get stuck in the weeds there. My question is, why is the person who pulled the plug on Terri Schiavo not in jail?

Well I picked these prognosis’s for reason, they’re the same prognosis’s of carrying a baby to term. So why is it wrong in the case our hypothetical sherry to pull the plug, but totally ok to do it with the same prognosis in pregnancy?

First of all, I’ve never said that abortion is always totally ok, you can go back and check the record on that one. But I think one difference is that I don’t think a human being has established their rights until they’ve achieved conscious capacity of some type. A zygote’s never come close.

And I’m going to go back to the burning fertility clinic dilemma, because my honest answer informs my opinion about relative human “worth”. So I consider this:
I’m a firefighter responding to the fire and I find a room. In one corner is a small refrigerator labeled “100 embryos”, and in the other corner is two toddlers. Huddled brother and sister, crying and confused. Even if 10 of those embryos were my own, I’d rescue the toddlers. I bet the various parents of the 90 other embryos would make the same call. A FEELING and THINKING brother and sister, with a family somewhere that loves them. Parents that have poured their hearts and soul into them. Versus what, a bunch of embryos with undifferentiated cells that by scientific definition have never had any free agency. Quite honestly, those have less priority to me than the toddlers, because they don’t matter as much. I wouldn’t really feel bad because I know those embryos never even had remotely the capacity to care. Like empty vessels.

A. A women would never know she was pregnant with a zygote, which is the first stage of the embryonic stage (lasts about 4 days). By the time she knows she’s pregnant, she’s usually out of the embryonic stage. So the whole calling it a zygote is just minimizing. If you’re feeling the need to unjustly minimize something, you’re probably on the wrong track. If not you shouldn’t have to resort to minimizing to help justify this in your mind. This should be telling you something.

B. To answer your question these frozen embryos, aren’t implanted, are suspended, don’t have a mother to raise them yet, don’t have the odds of survival the already formed toddlers do, save the toddlers. Not that hard. Still a tragedy, but not that hard.

C. And your basing your beliefs solely on the fact that you cannot personalize what you refer to as just a clump of cells. Kind of like the box scenario. You can press a button and get 10 million dollars, but someone random around the world dies...a lot of people behind close doors would press the button. It’s because we can’t personalize with them. Or like how we just kind of shrug our shoulders when 60 die in a terrorist attack in Africa, but loose our minds when 5 die in a shooting in America a couple towns away. Life is the standard we set, that “embryo” is human life, just in a different stage. Now you’re playing a game where you’re adding value to some human life over others, would you rather have 5 severely autistic people die, or one super smart scientist? The crazy part is we don’t have to play this game at all. Birth control is the easiest and cheapest it has ever been, there is zero excuse to act irresponsibly and not use any sort of birth control when your participating in the act of reproduction, ZERO. We don’t need to play this game. Draw the line at life, and make people take responsibility for their actions

D. The prognosis’s I gave in my scenarios are for common legal abortions.

A. Life can be cruel and unfair. A woman could be raped, and held captive, then escape after a few days. She might be pregnant and know it. Anyone who has sex knows they might have a zygote in them. I've heard there are tests that can detect a week old embryo. As technology improves, this will only get earlier. And justify what exactly? Are you saying that the few day old blastocyst is morally equivalent to a human being that has existed 48 months since fertilization? If aforementioned woman takes an abortion pill, would you giver her the same punishment as if she premeditatedly murdered an innocent toddler?

>>>”To answer your question these frozen embryos, aren’t implanted, are suspended, don’t have a mother to raise them yet, don’t have the odds of survival the already formed toddlers do, save the toddlers. Not that hard. Still a tragedy, but not that hard.”

Who’s minimizing now? You just said a “soul” popped into each of those 100 embryos at fertilization. Some lives are more important because they have greater “odds of survival”?

>>>”We don’t need to play this game.”

Well if you’re on team “zygote personhood”, the game is just getting started. If you’re saying that the zygote is morally equivalent to human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization you’re going to have to back it with your convictions. If you’re saying they matter equally, then you’re going to have to advance policy positions that would punish ANYONE for the premeditated murder of a zygote just as much as the premeditated murder of a toddler. It’s kind of funny to me, because I’ve always had relatively conservative views about abortion. But this “zygote personhood” movement just seems frankly absurd to me.

Yes and those very very very few cases are tragedy’s. And yes a zygote or blastocyst is equivalent to human life, because it is human life. If you think it’s wrong to kill a butterfly, it’s just a wrong to kill a caterpillar, even though you don’t think it’s as pretty as the butterfly. Life is the only standard we should be looking at, not these abstract words like “personhood” that you could ask 50 different people what their definition is and get 50 different answers. We can’t be basing laws on abstract philosophical terms, especially ones that are honestly nonsensical. We have already solved what is life with science, the only thing that really comes into question is a virus. We’ve already laid out that life is an inalienable self-evident right. You can talk moral equivilents all you want, “what’s worse, killing an old man, or a toddler?” Guess what, they’re both wrong. It’s still not ok to kill.

The punishment for the premeditated murder of an old man or a toddler is roughly the same. That informs us on the ramifications for full zygote personhood.

 

[sakinago]

Well I picked these prognosis’s for reason, they’re the same prognosis’s of carrying a baby to term. So why is it wrong in the case our hypothetical sherry to pull the plug, but totally ok to do it with the same prognosis in pregnancy?

First of all, I’ve never said that abortion is always totally ok, you can go back and check the record on that one. But I think one difference is that I don’t think a human being has established their rights until they’ve achieved conscious capacity of some type. A zygote’s never come close.

And I’m going to go back to the burning fertility clinic dilemma, because my honest answer informs my opinion about relative human “worth”. So I consider this:
I’m a firefighter responding to the fire and I find a room. In one corner is a small refrigerator labeled “100 embryos”, and in the other corner is two toddlers. Huddled brother and sister, crying and confused. Even if 10 of those embryos were my own, I’d rescue the toddlers. I bet the various parents of the 90 other embryos would make the same call. A FEELING and THINKING brother and sister, with a family somewhere that loves them. Parents that have poured their hearts and soul into them. Versus what, a bunch of embryos with undifferentiated cells that by scientific definition have never had any free agency. Quite honestly, those have less priority to me than the toddlers, because they don’t matter as much. I wouldn’t really feel bad because I know those embryos never even had remotely the capacity to care. Like empty vessels.

A. A women would never know she was pregnant with a zygote, which is the first stage of the embryonic stage (lasts about 4 days). By the time she knows she’s pregnant, she’s usually out of the embryonic stage. So the whole calling it a zygote is just minimizing. If you’re feeling the need to unjustly minimize something, you’re probably on the wrong track. If not you shouldn’t have to resort to minimizing to help justify this in your mind. This should be telling you something.

B. To answer your question these frozen embryos, aren’t implanted, are suspended, don’t have a mother to raise them yet, don’t have the odds of survival the already formed toddlers do, save the toddlers. Not that hard. Still a tragedy, but not that hard.

C. And your basing your beliefs solely on the fact that you cannot personalize what you refer to as just a clump of cells. Kind of like the box scenario. You can press a button and get 10 million dollars, but someone random around the world dies...a lot of people behind close doors would press the button. It’s because we can’t personalize with them. Or like how we just kind of shrug our shoulders when 60 die in a terrorist attack in Africa, but loose our minds when 5 die in a shooting in America a couple towns away. Life is the standard we set, that “embryo” is human life, just in a different stage. Now you’re playing a game where you’re adding value to some human life over others, would you rather have 5 severely autistic people die, or one super smart scientist? The crazy part is we don’t have to play this game at all. Birth control is the easiest and cheapest it has ever been, there is zero excuse to act irresponsibly and not use any sort of birth control when your participating in the act of reproduction, ZERO. We don’t need to play this game. Draw the line at life, and make people take responsibility for their actions

D. The prognosis’s I gave in my scenarios are for common legal abortions.

A. Life can be cruel and unfair. A woman could be raped, and held captive, then escape after a few days. She might be pregnant and know it. Anyone who has sex knows they might have a zygote in them. I've heard there are tests that can detect a week old embryo. As technology improves, this will only get earlier. And justify what exactly? Are you saying that the few day old blastocyst is morally equivalent to a human being that has existed 48 months since fertilization? If aforementioned woman takes an abortion pill, would you giver her the same punishment as if she premeditatedly murdered an innocent toddler?

>>>”To answer your question these frozen embryos, aren’t implanted, are suspended, don’t have a mother to raise them yet, don’t have the odds of survival the already formed toddlers do, save the toddlers. Not that hard. Still a tragedy, but not that hard.”

Who’s minimizing now? You just said a “soul” popped into each of those 100 embryos at fertilization. Some lives are more important because they have greater “odds of survival”?

>>>”We don’t need to play this game.”

Well if you’re on team “zygote personhood”, the game is just getting started. If you’re saying that the zygote is morally equivalent to human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization you’re going to have to back it with your convictions. If you’re saying they matter equally, then you’re going to have to advance policy positions that would punish ANYONE for the premeditated murder of a zygote just as much as the premeditated murder of a toddler. It’s kind of funny to me, because I’ve always had relatively conservative views about abortion. But this “zygote personhood” movement just seems frankly absurd to me.

Yes and those very very very few cases are tragedy’s. And yes a zygote or blastocyst is equivalent to human life, because it is human life. If you think it’s wrong to kill a butterfly, it’s just a wrong to kill a caterpillar, even though you don’t think it’s as pretty as the butterfly. Life is the only standard we should be looking at, not these abstract words like “personhood” that you could ask 50 different people what their definition is and get 50 different answers. We can’t be basing laws on abstract philosophical terms, especially ones that are honestly nonsensical. We have already solved what is life with science, the only thing that really comes into question is a virus. We’ve already laid out that life is an inalienable self-evident right. You can talk moral equivilents all you want, “what’s worse, killing an old man, or a toddler?” Guess what, they’re both wrong. It’s still not ok to kill.

The punishment for the premeditated murder of an old man or a toddler is roughly the same. That informs us on the ramifications for full zygote personhood.

And if you knowingly kill a pregnant women, that’s a double homicide, what’s your point?

 

[MPS777]

First of all, I’ve never said that abortion is always totally ok, you can go back and check the record on that one. But I think one difference is that I don’t think a human being has established their rights until they’ve achieved conscious capacity of some type. A zygote’s never come close.

And I’m going to go back to the burning fertility clinic dilemma, because my honest answer informs my opinion about relative human “worth”. So I consider this:
I’m a firefighter responding to the fire and I find a room. In one corner is a small refrigerator labeled “100 embryos”, and in the other corner is two toddlers. Huddled brother and sister, crying and confused. Even if 10 of those embryos were my own, I’d rescue the toddlers. I bet the various parents of the 90 other embryos would make the same call. A FEELING and THINKING brother and sister, with a family somewhere that loves them. Parents that have poured their hearts and soul into them. Versus what, a bunch of embryos with undifferentiated cells that by scientific definition have never had any free agency. Quite honestly, those have less priority to me than the toddlers, because they don’t matter as much. I wouldn’t really feel bad because I know those embryos never even had remotely the capacity to care. Like empty vessels.

A. A women would never know she was pregnant with a zygote, which is the first stage of the embryonic stage (lasts about 4 days). By the time she knows she’s pregnant, she’s usually out of the embryonic stage. So the whole calling it a zygote is just minimizing. If you’re feeling the need to unjustly minimize something, you’re probably on the wrong track. If not you shouldn’t have to resort to minimizing to help justify this in your mind. This should be telling you something.

B. To answer your question these frozen embryos, aren’t implanted, are suspended, don’t have a mother to raise them yet, don’t have the odds of survival the already formed toddlers do, save the toddlers. Not that hard. Still a tragedy, but not that hard.

C. And your basing your beliefs solely on the fact that you cannot personalize what you refer to as just a clump of cells. Kind of like the box scenario. You can press a button and get 10 million dollars, but someone random around the world dies...a lot of people behind close doors would press the button. It’s because we can’t personalize with them. Or like how we just kind of shrug our shoulders when 60 die in a terrorist attack in Africa, but loose our minds when 5 die in a shooting in America a couple towns away. Life is the standard we set, that “embryo” is human life, just in a different stage. Now you’re playing a game where you’re adding value to some human life over others, would you rather have 5 severely autistic people die, or one super smart scientist? The crazy part is we don’t have to play this game at all. Birth control is the easiest and cheapest it has ever been, there is zero excuse to act irresponsibly and not use any sort of birth control when your participating in the act of reproduction, ZERO. We don’t need to play this game. Draw the line at life, and make people take responsibility for their actions

D. The prognosis’s I gave in my scenarios are for common legal abortions.

A. Life can be cruel and unfair. A woman could be raped, and held captive, then escape after a few days. She might be pregnant and know it. Anyone who has sex knows they might have a zygote in them. I've heard there are tests that can detect a week old embryo. As technology improves, this will only get earlier. And justify what exactly? Are you saying that the few day old blastocyst is morally equivalent to a human being that has existed 48 months since fertilization? If aforementioned woman takes an abortion pill, would you giver her the same punishment as if she premeditatedly murdered an innocent toddler?

>>>”To answer your question these frozen embryos, aren’t implanted, are suspended, don’t have a mother to raise them yet, don’t have the odds of survival the already formed toddlers do, save the toddlers. Not that hard. Still a tragedy, but not that hard.”

Who’s minimizing now? You just said a “soul” popped into each of those 100 embryos at fertilization. Some lives are more important because they have greater “odds of survival”?

>>>”We don’t need to play this game.”

Well if you’re on team “zygote personhood”, the game is just getting started. If you’re saying that the zygote is morally equivalent to human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization you’re going to have to back it with your convictions. If you’re saying they matter equally, then you’re going to have to advance policy positions that would punish ANYONE for the premeditated murder of a zygote just as much as the premeditated murder of a toddler. It’s kind of funny to me, because I’ve always had relatively conservative views about abortion. But this “zygote personhood” movement just seems frankly absurd to me.

Yes and those very very very few cases are tragedy’s. And yes a zygote or blastocyst is equivalent to human life, because it is human life. If you think it’s wrong to kill a butterfly, it’s just a wrong to kill a caterpillar, even though you don’t think it’s as pretty as the butterfly. Life is the only standard we should be looking at, not these abstract words like “personhood” that you could ask 50 different people what their definition is and get 50 different answers. We can’t be basing laws on abstract philosophical terms, especially ones that are honestly nonsensical. We have already solved what is life with science, the only thing that really comes into question is a virus. We’ve already laid out that life is an inalienable self-evident right. You can talk moral equivilents all you want, “what’s worse, killing an old man, or a toddler?” Guess what, they’re both wrong. It’s still not ok to kill.

The punishment for the premeditated murder of an old man or a toddler is roughly the same. That informs us on the ramifications for full zygote personhood.

And if you knowingly kill a pregnant women, that’s a double homicide, what’s your point?

And under the same law, if the pregnant woman is a rape victim that kills her own, she gets off scott free. It tells us that her victim was not receiving “the equal protection of the laws”. They knew that when they were writing the law. There’s a reason she can get off scott free. Do you want to apply "equal protection of the laws" in this scenario?

 

[sakinago]

A. A women would never know she was pregnant with a zygote, which is the first stage of the embryonic stage (lasts about 4 days). By the time she knows she’s pregnant, she’s usually out of the embryonic stage. So the whole calling it a zygote is just minimizing. If you’re feeling the need to unjustly minimize something, you’re probably on the wrong track. If not you shouldn’t have to resort to minimizing to help justify this in your mind. This should be telling you something.

B. To answer your question these frozen embryos, aren’t implanted, are suspended, don’t have a mother to raise them yet, don’t have the odds of survival the already formed toddlers do, save the toddlers. Not that hard. Still a tragedy, but not that hard.

C. And your basing your beliefs solely on the fact that you cannot personalize what you refer to as just a clump of cells. Kind of like the box scenario. You can press a button and get 10 million dollars, but someone random around the world dies...a lot of people behind close doors would press the button. It’s because we can’t personalize with them. Or like how we just kind of shrug our shoulders when 60 die in a terrorist attack in Africa, but loose our minds when 5 die in a shooting in America a couple towns away. Life is the standard we set, that “embryo” is human life, just in a different stage. Now you’re playing a game where you’re adding value to some human life over others, would you rather have 5 severely autistic people die, or one super smart scientist? The crazy part is we don’t have to play this game at all. Birth control is the easiest and cheapest it has ever been, there is zero excuse to act irresponsibly and not use any sort of birth control when your participating in the act of reproduction, ZERO. We don’t need to play this game. Draw the line at life, and make people take responsibility for their actions

D. The prognosis’s I gave in my scenarios are for common legal abortions.

A. Life can be cruel and unfair. A woman could be raped, and held captive, then escape after a few days. She might be pregnant and know it. Anyone who has sex knows they might have a zygote in them. I've heard there are tests that can detect a week old embryo. As technology improves, this will only get earlier. And justify what exactly? Are you saying that the few day old blastocyst is morally equivalent to a human being that has existed 48 months since fertilization? If aforementioned woman takes an abortion pill, would you giver her the same punishment as if she premeditatedly murdered an innocent toddler?

>>>”To answer your question these frozen embryos, aren’t implanted, are suspended, don’t have a mother to raise them yet, don’t have the odds of survival the already formed toddlers do, save the toddlers. Not that hard. Still a tragedy, but not that hard.”

Who’s minimizing now? You just said a “soul” popped into each of those 100 embryos at fertilization. Some lives are more important because they have greater “odds of survival”?

>>>”We don’t need to play this game.”

Well if you’re on team “zygote personhood”, the game is just getting started. If you’re saying that the zygote is morally equivalent to human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization you’re going to have to back it with your convictions. If you’re saying they matter equally, then you’re going to have to advance policy positions that would punish ANYONE for the premeditated murder of a zygote just as much as the premeditated murder of a toddler. It’s kind of funny to me, because I’ve always had relatively conservative views about abortion. But this “zygote personhood” movement just seems frankly absurd to me.

Yes and those very very very few cases are tragedy’s. And yes a zygote or blastocyst is equivalent to human life, because it is human life. If you think it’s wrong to kill a butterfly, it’s just a wrong to kill a caterpillar, even though you don’t think it’s as pretty as the butterfly. Life is the only standard we should be looking at, not these abstract words like “personhood” that you could ask 50 different people what their definition is and get 50 different answers. We can’t be basing laws on abstract philosophical terms, especially ones that are honestly nonsensical. We have already solved what is life with science, the only thing that really comes into question is a virus. We’ve already laid out that life is an inalienable self-evident right. You can talk moral equivilents all you want, “what’s worse, killing an old man, or a toddler?” Guess what, they’re both wrong. It’s still not ok to kill.

The punishment for the premeditated murder of an old man or a toddler is roughly the same. That informs us on the ramifications for full zygote personhood.

And if you knowingly kill a pregnant women, that’s a double homicide, what’s your point?

And under the same law, if the pregnant woman is a rape victim that kills her own, she gets off scott free. It tells us that her victim was not receiving “the equal protection of the laws”. They knew that when they were writing the law. There’s a reason she can get off scott free. Do you want to apply "equal protection of the laws" in this scenario?

Thanks for proving my next point, obviously the law is inconsistent here. If someone kills a women on her way to the abortion clinic, that’s still a double homicide...so we recognize right to life, and still ignore it at the same time. The abortion laws were pretty much made by judges making it up as they go, and it’s where we got trimesters from, not even medically significant terms, but judges just making it up as they go. We should all find something wrong with this.

 

[Taz]

I’ll prove it but first you must look up “what is an appeal to ignorance”.

I'll look that up after you prove it.

I’ll do it for you.
“Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).”

And by your standard since we don’t remember our years as a toddler, it’s perfectly fine to kill a toddler right? Since they are soulless?

I think you are being trolled.

That or it’s really just a 8 year old who doesn’t know any better. I’m definitely suspecting that.

Even if that's the case, how much can an 8 year old mind really learn from you? I just think they are trying to get you to say something (anything) they can twist around and use against you.

There is no desire to learn anything coming across from their posts.

Hey Chuz Deflection, what are you trying to teach us? Anything at all?

 

[Taz]

A. Life can be cruel and unfair. A woman could be raped, and held captive, then escape after a few days. She might be pregnant and know it. Anyone who has sex knows they might have a zygote in them. I've heard there are tests that can detect a week old embryo. As technology improves, this will only get earlier. And justify what exactly? Are you saying that the few day old blastocyst is morally equivalent to a human being that has existed 48 months since fertilization? If aforementioned woman takes an abortion pill, would you giver her the same punishment as if she premeditatedly murdered an innocent toddler?

>>>”To answer your question these frozen embryos, aren’t implanted, are suspended, don’t have a mother to raise them yet, don’t have the odds of survival the already formed toddlers do, save the toddlers. Not that hard. Still a tragedy, but not that hard.”

Who’s minimizing now? You just said a “soul” popped into each of those 100 embryos at fertilization. Some lives are more important because they have greater “odds of survival”?

>>>”We don’t need to play this game.”

Well if you’re on team “zygote personhood”, the game is just getting started. If you’re saying that the zygote is morally equivalent to human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization you’re going to have to back it with your convictions. If you’re saying they matter equally, then you’re going to have to advance policy positions that would punish ANYONE for the premeditated murder of a zygote just as much as the premeditated murder of a toddler. It’s kind of funny to me, because I’ve always had relatively conservative views about abortion. But this “zygote personhood” movement just seems frankly absurd to me.

Yes and those very very very few cases are tragedy’s. And yes a zygote or blastocyst is equivalent to human life, because it is human life. If you think it’s wrong to kill a butterfly, it’s just a wrong to kill a caterpillar, even though you don’t think it’s as pretty as the butterfly. Life is the only standard we should be looking at, not these abstract words like “personhood” that you could ask 50 different people what their definition is and get 50 different answers. We can’t be basing laws on abstract philosophical terms, especially ones that are honestly nonsensical. We have already solved what is life with science, the only thing that really comes into question is a virus. We’ve already laid out that life is an inalienable self-evident right. You can talk moral equivilents all you want, “what’s worse, killing an old man, or a toddler?” Guess what, they’re both wrong. It’s still not ok to kill.

The punishment for the premeditated murder of an old man or a toddler is roughly the same. That informs us on the ramifications for full zygote personhood.

And if you knowingly kill a pregnant women, that’s a double homicide, what’s your point?

And under the same law, if the pregnant woman is a rape victim that kills her own, she gets off scott free. It tells us that her victim was not receiving “the equal protection of the laws”. They knew that when they were writing the law. There’s a reason she can get off scott free. Do you want to apply "equal protection of the laws" in this scenario?

Thanks for proving my next point, obviously the law is inconsistent here. If someone kills a women on her way to the abortion clinic, that’s still a double homicide...so we recognize right to life, and still ignore it at the same time. The abortion laws were pretty much made by judges making it up as they go, and it’s where we got trimesters from, not even medically significant terms, but judges just making it up as they go. We should all find something wrong with this.

So what's your plan to stop all the abortions?

 

[sakinago]

Memory is all in the brain, which is why you can get hit on the head and loose your memory. Your theory on memory is just insane

Prove it.

I’ll prove it but first you must look up “what is an appeal to ignorance”.

I'll look that up after you prove it.

I’ll do it for you.
“Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).”

And by your standard since we don’t remember our years as a toddler, it’s perfectly fine to kill a toddler right? Since they are soulless?

No, but nobody has yet pinpointed the time when a re-incarnated soul (for lack of a better word) re-enters a new body. It could even be that the light that people see when they are dying is them coming out from their new mother's body. Nobody knows, and until then, all possibilities should be on the table.

Well first you have to prove reincarnation is real.

 

[Taz]

Prove it.

I’ll prove it but first you must look up “what is an appeal to ignorance”.

I'll look that up after you prove it.

I’ll do it for you.
“Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).”

And by your standard since we don’t remember our years as a toddler, it’s perfectly fine to kill a toddler right? Since they are soulless?

No, but nobody has yet pinpointed the time when a re-incarnated soul (for lack of a better word) re-enters a new body. It could even be that the light that people see when they are dying is them coming out from their new mother's body. Nobody knows, and until then, all possibilities should be on the table.

Well first you have to prove reincarnation is real.

There's plenty of stuff on the internet that suggests that that's what's happening. Like I said "suggest", but it's still pretty strong, kids who can describe a whole neighbourhood that they never been to, and all their ex-neighbours, when someone had recently died. Of course it hasn't been scientifically verified, but there is quite a lot of stuff like that out there, and it even happened in my own family. So let's say that I LEAN towards that. So a fetus wouldn't necessarily be automatically inhabited by a soul at conception, and I think it highly unlikely. So to me, the fetus is more like just an empty vessel. When does the soul take over a new body? Dunno.