The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[Boss]

The 'Supreme Court has been wrong' argument fails as an appeal to consequences fallacy.

Nope... The "Supreme Court is right" argument fails because the SCOTUS has very often been wrong.

Look morons.... This argument is NOT about whether the SCOTUS has made a ruling on abortion. I think we're all aware of Roe v. Wade, and I don't think anyone is arguing this didn't happen. But because the SCOTUS ruled something, doesn't make it right. So far, that seems to be your only defense of abortion on demand.

 

[Boss]

In Roe v. Wade the SCOTUS actually ruled fetuses are human beings. Not that SCOTUS carries more weight than science and biology, but since you mentioned them. The entire ruling is predicated on "viability" of the already-existing human life.

In order to believe that a fetus is not a human life, you have to reject science and biology.

Well, no, actually, I don't. Fact is, there are thousands of children who die of starvation every day in the world, and you don't really care about them.

Also, while SCOTUS put viability as a criteria as to when to cut off abortion, they also ruled that the health of the mother throws those out in the companion ruling "Doe v. Boland". Pro-Life nuts like to forget the Boland ruling, because it doesn't help their cause.

What the **** are you yammering about now? Doe v. Boland was about digital kiddie porn... had nothing to do with when life begins or whether a fetus is a human life.

Whether children die of starvation or whether I care for them, also has not a damn thing to do with the fetus and the fact that it's human life. It's just more of your mindless emotive bleating to hear yourself bleat.

The point I raised is that Roe v. Wade does not declare the fetus is not a human life. In fact, the ruling admits there is human life and rules on the viability of said life. So the argument that Roe somehow supports the notion that a fetus is not a human life, is a complete fallacy.

 

[Boss]

For you and others opposed to a woman's right to privacy, the fact that this has no legal bearing on the issue whatsoever appears difficult for you to understand.

Prior to birth there is no 'personhood,' no entitlement to Constitutional protections, no legal standing equal to that of the woman.

That you disagree with his is personal, subjective, and legally irrelevant, as there are indeed those who disagree with you. The right to privacy protects your beliefs by allowing you to not have an abortion if it's contrary to those beliefs; likewise the right to privacy protects others of good faith and good conscience who disagree with you and believe that 'personhood' starts after one is born.

But whatever one's beliefs, the right to privacy ensures that government not interfere with each citizens' protected liberty to believe as he sees fit.

Abortion is not a belief, it is an action. No one is arguing against right to privacy, the argument is centered on whether right to privacy trumps the right to life of the unborn. So which "right" is more important, right to privacy or right to live? I think most would agree the right to live kind of trumps all others because if you can't live, you can't have any rights.

"Personhood" is an interesting criteria you've created to discriminate against the unborn. I might add, similar artificial criteria were designed to keep blacks enslaved and to keep women from voting. Technically, if we as a civil society allow such false criteria to stand, it means that any government at any time can simply deem you're not "person enough" to have rights. It's no longer about the scientific evidence someone is human, it's about the philosophical contemplation of whether they are enough value as a person. Dangerous territory, indeed!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Who forced her to have sex?

Do you understand the connection?

Her rapist? Her father? You don't know. That's why you don't get a say.

And you do?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Who forced her to have sex?

Do you understand the connection?

Her rapist? Her father? You don't know. That's why you don't get a say.

And you do?

Only people who have a say are the woman and her doctor.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Fetuses develop into babies given adequate care and resources.

Let me stop you right there. A spark leads to fire, fire shoots out embers, those embers are the 'seeds' by which the fire spreads. Just because those embers aren't the manifestation of fire doesn't make them any less part of the fire. When those embers land on something combustible, they become fire, the fire they start is the same fire that birthed them.

We all know what can start one. Lightning, a match, a spark, anything hot enough. But we know where and how a fire originates. However, as far as human beings are concerned, we are the only sentient species that doesn't recognize our own offspring in the stages of prenatal development. We proceed in denying the origin, as a result, their personhood and therefore robbing them of special considerations among their species. That frankly is disturbing.

These 'fetuses' are human in origin, and are therefore human. Human in, and human out. The moment they begin developing human characteristics is the moment we stop calling the child a fetus, but a baby. When you look at a 3D ultrasound, with a 'fetus' developed enough to see limbs, fingers, toes, and facial features; you automatically recognize it as a baby, not anything else.

A fetus is no more a child than a tree is a seed.

But it doesn't make them any less of a member of their progeny, does it? A seed can spawn a tree, and we know where it comes from. The seed comes from the tree, a tree is born from a seed. The cycle of life, death, and rebirth. Hand in glove.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fetuses develop into babies given adequate care and resources.

Let me stop you right there. A spark leads to fire, fire shoots out embers, those embers are the 'seeds' by which the fire spreads. Just because those embers aren't the manifestation of fire doesn't make them any less part of the fire. When those embers land on something combustible, they become fire, the fire they start is the same fire that birthed them.

We all know what can start one. Lightning, a match, a spark, anything hot enough. But we know where and how a fire originates. However, as far as human beings are concerned, we are the only sentient species that doesn't recognize our own offspring in the stages of prenatal development. That frankly is disturbing.

These 'fetuses' are human in origin, and are therefore human. Human in, and human out. The moment they begin developing human characteristics is the moment we stop calling the child a fetus, but a baby. When you look at a 3D ultrasound, with a 'fetus' developed enough to see limbs, fingers, toes, and facial features; you automatically recognize it as a baby, not anything else.

A fetus is no more a child than a tree is a seed.

But it doesn't make them any less of a member of their progeny, does it? A seed can spawn a tree, and we know where it comes from. The seed comes from the tree, a tree is born from a seed. The cycle of life, death, and rebirth. Hand in glove.

Your foreskin is, or was HUMAN.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sperms and eggs are human too.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is a political thread, on a political forum. And, from that perspective, you don't have a case.

Politics and science; the result of which spawns this debate on abortion, on climate change et cetera. By using science you can justify a political belief... stop me if I haven't seen this somewhere else before.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Its the same sadness when you have a miscarriage.

By that sadness alone, the mother knows the life she had the potential to bring forth into this world is now gone. She mourns. She reacts in the same manner a mother does when she loses her already born child to a tragic circumstance. The child is a life either way, hence the sadness.

 

[Derideo_Te]

However, as far as human beings are concerned, we are the only sentient species that doesn't recognize our own offspring in the stages of prenatal development.

You ignorance is legion!

Ever heard of kangaroos? They will sacrifice their own child to escape a predator.

And please provide us with the academic evidence that other species are capable of "recognizing" their "own offspring in the stages of prenatal development".

Or run away and ignore the question because you can't, as usual.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Its the same sadness when you have a miscarriage.

By that sadness alone, the mother knows the life she had the potential to bring forth into this world is now gone. She mourns. She reacts in the same manner a mother does when she loses her already born child to a tragic circumstance. The child is a life either way, hence the sadness.

And your "scientific evidence" for this is what? Some anti-rights religious website?

 

[TemplarKormac]

A fetus isn't a human being.

One simple question: if a fetus isn't human, then how or why does it develop into one?

 

[NYcarbineer]

A fetus isn't a human being.

One simple question: if a fetus isn't human, then how or why does it develop into one?

Should a woman killing a fetus go to prison for life, or get the death penalty? Assuming she is not insane and does it in a pre-meditated manner...

 

[JoeB131]

What the **** are you yammering about now? Doe v. Boland was about digital kiddie porn... had nothing to do with when life begins or whether a fetus is a human life.

Sorry, had it slightly wrong, it was Doe v. Bolton. And frankly, if you really knew anything about abortion law, you'd know what I was talking about.

Doe v. Bolton - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Whether children die of starvation or whether I care for them, also has not a damn thing to do with the fetus and the fact that it's human life. It's just more of your mindless emotive bleating to hear yourself bleat.

Not at all guy. The fact is, you don't care about starving kids. What you are terrified of is women controlling their own destinies and flipping off your Imaginary Sky Fairy.

The point I raised is that Roe v. Wade does not declare the fetus is not a human life. In fact, the ruling admits there is human life and rules on the viability of said life. So the argument that Roe somehow supports the notion that a fetus is not a human life, is a complete fallacy.

Again, Doe v. Bolton invalidated what few restrictions Roe put into place, and good riddance. The ruling didn't say it was human life one way or the other, and only in cases of "Viability" might it be restricted.

 

[JoeB131]

A fetus isn't a human being.

One simple question: if a fetus isn't human, then how or why does it develop into one?

How does Spooge turn into a human being, then? Must be human.

 

[Boss]

Your foreskin is, or was HUMAN.

Sperms and eggs are human too.

Neither examples are living organisms. To qualify as a living biological organism, cells must work in organization to process energy and reproduce. These are human cells, they are not human life. They exist as a result of human life, the living organism produced them, but they are incapable of ever being living human organisms.

Once a fused egg and sperm cell begins to carry on the process of life, it forever becomes a living organism in the state of being. Since it is inside a human and all the cells are from the human organism, it has to be a human organism. A human organism in state of being is a human being.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your foreskin is, or was HUMAN.

Sperms and eggs are human too.

Neither examples are living organisms. To qualify as a living biological organism, cells must work in organization to process energy and reproduce. These are human cells, they are not human life. They exist as a result of human life, the living organism produced them, but they are incapable of ever being living human organisms.

Once a fused egg and sperm cell begins to carry on the process of life, it forever becomes a living organism in the state of being. Since it is inside a human and all the cells are from the human organism, it has to be a human organism. A human organism in state of being is a human being.

Then taking the morning after pill should be a crime of 1st degree murder.

Good luck selling that to the sane.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Your foreskin is, or was HUMAN.

Sperms and eggs are human too.

Neither examples are living organisms. To qualify as a living biological organism, cells must work in organization to process energy and reproduce. These are human cells, they are not human life. They exist as a result of human life, the living organism produced them, but they are incapable of ever being living human organisms.

Once a fused egg and sperm cell begins to carry on the process of life, it forever becomes a living organism in the state of being. Since it is inside a human and all the cells are from the human organism, it has to be a human organism. A human organism in state of being is a human being.

Sounds pretty much like cancer cells to me.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your foreskin is, or was HUMAN.

Sperms and eggs are human too.

Neither examples are living organisms. To qualify as a living biological organism, cells must work in organization to process energy and reproduce. These are human cells, they are not human life. They exist as a result of human life, the living organism produced them, but they are incapable of ever being living human organisms.

Once a fused egg and sperm cell begins to carry on the process of life, it forever becomes a living organism in the state of being. Since it is inside a human and all the cells are from the human organism, it has to be a human organism. A human organism in state of being is a human being.

Eggs and sperm are living haploid organisms that are essential parts of human reproduction. If they were weren't alive we could not reproduce.