each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.

[Shadow Wolf]

Your only criteria was suffering. Now you are changing it. Toss in the resource argument you used as well.

I never actually said having abortions for particular conditions, sorts of peoples, or what have you. You inserted a perimeter that was not a part of my post. Since you failed to understand my post, what I meant was an abortion prevents the suffering that comes with life, not with any particular conditions. You took it upon yourself to try to stretch this to a "deciding who lives and who dies."

Thanks for demonstrating your selective rationale of who gets to live and who gets to die

Your snide attempts at trying to set some crude trap are noted, so poor it wasn't even hidden. That, or you have crap reading comprehension skills.

 

[Shad]

I never actually said having abortions for particular conditions, sorts of peoples, or what have you.

You said it reduce suffering which is the only criteria you provided.

You inserted a perimeter that was not a part of my post.

No it was the only criteria you offered

Since you failed to understand my post, what I meant was an abortion prevents the suffering that comes with life, not with any particular conditions.

So does murdering a child 1 mins after birth.

You took it upon yourself to try to stretch this to a "deciding who lives and who dies."

No as you used suffering and only suffering as a criteria. Abortion prevents X thus is a X is rationale for abortion.

Your snide attempts at trying to set some crude trap are noted, so poor it wasn't even hidden.

I had no intention in hiding the trap. I made it specific for you to see if what you would say when someone decides TG are suffering thus a possible reason for abortion.

That, or you have crap reading comprehension skills.

Nope. You just couldn't figure out what your own post is saying.

Why do you wear a seat belt beside a law?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Obviously not.

You can't even tell the difference between a truckload of dead wood and a living thing like an acorn.
Sorry, you lose.
Tom

So you choose personal insults. Unfortunate to see that the concept of "metaphor" is beyond you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nope. You just couldn't figure out what your own post is saying.

I know what my post said. It said abortion prevents suffering. I mentioned absolutely nothing of specific conditions. And not only that, you took it to a personal level. You can change transgender with Jew, autistic, black, aboriginal, my post said nothing beyond people in general.
Your attempts to make it more than are very much "shame on you." I can't even call your attempt to twist things around thinly veiled because it's more transparent than that.

 

[Shad]

I know what my post said. It said abortion prevents suffering. I mentioned absolutely nothing of specific conditions.

A prevention is a rationale to do something. That was my point thus the basis of my post and question. That is why I provided a specific type of suffering which is relatable to you. Just as when people decided to have abortions due to downs syndrome those with it spoke out as others were determining their life's value. Suffering is assumed to be so great as to override everything else. Ergo abortion was the choice as the life's value is below some subjective threshold thus not worth living at all.

Why do you wear a seat belt? Could it be..... to... prevent injury? Shocking! Ergo the point.

And not only that, you took it to a personal level.

Of course I did. I wanted to see what you would say when the situation involves something related to you rather than something not. This gets you out of a comfort zone.

You can change transgender with Jew, autistic, black, aboriginal, my post said nothing beyond people in general.

None have any issues like TG. False comparison.

Your attempts to make it more than are very much "shame on you."

*Yawn* Seems like you can not handle when the situation is relatable so instead of answering the question you try to use shame to silence me. Good leftist /pat on head

I can't even call your attempt to twist things around thinly veiled because it's more transparent than that.

*Yawn* More dodging to avoid the question. Thanks for expressing your bias

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A prevention is a rationale to do something.

Perhaps you should look at it from a far more pessimistic view? Everyone suffers in one way or another. Abortion prevents that.

Of course I did. I wanted to see what you would say when the situation involves something related to you rather than something not. This gets you out of a comfort zone.

No. It just means you tried to bait me, and drag your own point in and try to attach it my point. Which I do believe is the definition of trolling.

None have any issues like TG. False comparison.

You're right. No one's sold us into slavery, lynched us, drove us from our lands, or committed genocide against us.
But those groups have all had their haters, including those who would see them dead. "Designer babies" actually tend to get a bit of a knee jerk reaction in the LGBT community. And even though I don't share the feeling, I understand why as hatred rather than facts could potentially wipe us out.
Basically, because you took it upon yourself to assume my position on this, I do believe certain people should be encouraged to not reproduce and instead adopt, and we should all be encouraged to breed less and adopt more - a healthier human race with far fewer of us. You asked about transgender people, I gave you my response to transgender people in regards to my position above. We don't need more kids with things such as Huntington's disease, but we do need more homes for homeless kids. We also need fewer of us, and we essentially have no other natural predator other than our own selves. It's not a question of who lives and who dies, because there is no life being created to die. It is genetic diseases being erased and filling a very needed social role for those who do still want children.

 

[Shad]

Perhaps you should look at it from a far more pessimistic view? Everyone suffers in one way or another. Abortion prevents that.

When it comes to abortion I can not hold such a view in most cases as a majority of those are about parent(s) or merely a mulligan for a poor choice.

No. It just means you tried to bait me, and drag your own point in and try to attach it my point. Which I do believe is the definition of trolling.

No. This is your perception and being uncomfortable thus trying to grasp any reason to avoid the point.

You're right. No one's sold us into slavery, lynched us, drove us from our lands, or committed genocide against us.
But those groups have all had their haters, including those who would see them dead.

You are bandwagoning on to other issues to avoid a simple question and point.

"Designer babies" actually tend to get a bit of a knee jerk reaction in the LGBT community. And even though I don't share the feeling, I understand why as hatred rather than facts could potentially wipe us out.

Designer babies could be a future of the general point I am bringing up.

Basically, because you took it upon yourself to assume my position on this, I do believe certain people should be encouraged to not reproduce and instead adopt, and we should all be encouraged to breed less and adopt more - a healthier human race with far fewer of us.

No I just used your own comment. You just didn't know what prevention means when it come to application of solutions. Ergo my seat belt example.

You asked about transgender people, I gave you my response to transgender people in regards to my position above. We don't need more kids with things such as Huntington's disease, but we do need more homes for homeless kids. We also need fewer of us, and we essentially have no other natural predator other than our own selves. It's not a question of who lives and who dies, because there is no life being created to die. It is genetic diseases being erased and filling a very needed social role for those who do still want children.

Yes it is about who lives and who dies. You just use criteria you find palatable to determine who dies. Instead of trying to help people or find a cure you just eliminate people with those problems. Huntington's is inherited after all. This becomes a backdoor to eugenics which targets those with disabilities first.

Have you seen the appeal to the UN by those with Downs Syndrome in reaction to Iceland's abortion policy?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Similarly, the word "person" is highly subjective. To the ancient Israelites, only adult male Israelites were really persons. Here in the USA, a couple hundred years ago, blacks and indigenous humans weren't persons. It was well after the War of Northern Aggression that killing a Native American was recognized as a crime in my home state, Indiana.

Personhood can be at least roughly established scientifically, though. Are you arguing that something without a brain is a person? Does that make a mushroom a person? I cause chemical reactions in grass that amount to "pain" when I cut the lawn. Am I harming people? Animists think so, but at least they're consistent.

Also, that you call it the War of Northern Aggression is very telling and yet strange, because you just implied the US was wrong for not considering blacks persons, but only Confederate sympathizers called it the War of Northern Aggression.

They simply weren't persons, according to the ethics and laws of the day.

That is why laws should be evidence-based, not based on someone's whims. Please tell me which is a person:

What objective basis do you have for declaring EITHER a person?

I would be a democrat but my conscience is against abortion in many cases. I do not wish to compromise the health of the mothers in any way though.

But there's one party that knows so little about science that killing the mother to protect something that can't exist outside her is the preferred option.

The woman is a person.
The lifeform in the womb requires the mother's body to function.
The mother should be the priority.

SCOTUS ruled in favour of the draft

SCOTUS has ruled in favor of a lot of things, like slavery. We're all about rights up until we don't find them convenient. I dare any person who claims a fetus is a person to A) show me the psychological and biological evidence and B) show a willingness to grant underage children full rights. Don't tell me the parents have to choose for the child after birth but the fetus "decides" while it's living off of Mom's blood supply.

Basically, because you took it upon yourself to assume my position on this, I do believe certain people should be encouraged to not reproduce and instead adopt, and we should all be encouraged to breed less and adopt more - a healthier human race with far fewer of us.

I would but since mutation can happen with "normal" parents, you wouldn't catch them all.

 

[columbus]

Personhood can be at least roughly established scientifically, though.

No, not really.
Personhood is an abstract concept, more like morality or literature. It only exists in the mind.
And it's extremely subjective. For all of human history, some human beings were considered persons and some were not.
That's why I don't use the terms person or personhood in this debate, and stick to the more precise "human being".

Are you arguing that something without a brain is a person? Does that make a mushroom a person?

Personally, I consider an organism with the potential for sentience to be a person. But that's just my opinion. I see that my dog, with her loving disposition and strong personality, as more of a person than Terry Schiavoe. Personhood is not an absolute, it's a spectrum of possibilities.
So I don't use the word much. It's just too darned messy and subjective.

Tom

 

[columbus]

Also, that you call it the War of Northern Aggression is very telling and yet strange, because you just implied the US was wrong for not considering blacks persons, but only Confederate sympathizers called it the War of Northern Aggression.

I don't want to derail the thread, so I will keep this short.

"The War of Northern Aggression" is a much more accurate term than the usual Civil War or War Between the States.
The Confederates did essentially the same thing that the Founding Fathers did a few decades earlier. They decided to be their own country. The reason that the war was so bloody and destructive is that the Northerners were invading another country. The Southerners were heavily outgunned, but were defending their families and homes on their own turf.
Tom

 

[Prestor John]

No; your call for denial of rights was a call for enforcement of your beliefs. And not just in a single post; you expressed the same idea several times through the thread. I just picked one example.

But I understand now that you misspoke. Like I said: fair enough. What we say doesn't always perfectly reflect what we mean.

Which "rights" are you claiming I want denied anyone?

 

[Curious George]

Which "rights" are you claiming I want denied anyone?

The rights to make medical decisions concerning ones own body.

 

[Prestor John]

Wrong again. There was no appeal to authority.

You said in post #419 (and in numerous other posts) that I am wrong because "neither the law [or] the Bible agrees with you."

Claiming that something is true or untrue because X says so is an appeal to authority.

Granted, the authority you reference may be correct, but basing your argument on only that appeal remains (as I have said numerous times before) ineffective and unconvincing.

For example, for those who live outside the U.S. our laws concerning the not-yet-born don't matter much and are not used to define who is or is not a "human" or "person".

Also, for those who do not consider the Bible to be an authority on anything, what it declares won't matter at all to their personal beliefs about abortion.

By the way, as I said before, you have used this appeal to authority many times, however, as far as I know, you have yet to reference the specific laws or Biblical verses that support your claims.

Even though you have never supported any of your claims against me in this thread, I am hoping that you'd be willing to finally present the evidence from the law and the Bible that you claims support your argument

Considering your past behavior, I don't expect you to actually do this, but I would appreciate knowing where your claims come from rather than me assuming things.

Didn't we go over the fact that you do not understand logical fallacies and that you should not try to use them already?

It is so funny that you don't see the irony in using this appeal to authority to contest your use of those other appeals to authority.

Even if you had said that I do not understand logical fallacies and that I should not point out when you use them, your opinion is worth very little to me, so your appeal to your own authority remains, as I have said, ineffective and unconvincing.

Thank you for continuing to prove me correct.

Where did you get that crazy idea from? Citation needed. Remember, you are not a source.

Again, this is hilarious.

You dare to demand sources from me when you never back up any of your own claims?

Did you not just use yourself as a source to argue that I do not understand logical fallacies?

You are a walking contradiction. Filled with hypocrisies and double-standards.

Anyways, this "crazy idea" has been the basic assumption throughout all of human history.

Even liberal nut jobs who will one minute argue that the not-yet-born aren't human, then the next minute write a headline on People magazine, "She's having another baby!" while showing a picture of another pregnant celebrity.

Everyone everywhere knows that what is inside a pregnant woman is a baby.

Not in this matter. The Supreme Court is unlikely to reverse Roe vs. Wade.

I agree with this.

However, that hasn't stopped the crazy liberals from screaming that he would overturn it and do whatever they could to destroy his life.

Nope, but thanks for telling us that you do not understand what the Supreme Court does either.

Are you claiming that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn past decisions like Roe v. Wade?

Perhaps it is you that does not understand what the Supreme Court is capable of?

However, I am glad that you are more level-headed than the average crazy leftist nut-job.

You still have the burden of proof to support your ignorant claims.

Despite the fact that the not-yet-born would pass every single conceivable test that could be used to prove that something is "alive" or "human"?

Also, you have yet to reasonably define what it means to be a "person" (ever since your Terry Shiavo debacle), so how is there any burden of proof on me?

Again, I have all of human history, science (which as an atheist I thought you supported), and logic to determine that the not-yet-born are living human persons.

No, I am ignoring the attempt to change the topic.

You have continually used false claims about me to justify ignoring my arguments and posts.

Those posts I listed prove that you never once supported anything you claimed about me.

And there was no ad hominem.

Implying that I am a child and that I may have a serious mental issue rather than providing any evidence to back up your claims about me is the very definition of an ad hominem.

Dude! You really need to work on your logical fallacies. Your weak attempts to use them are truly comic.

Yeah...this is the second time that you erroneously claimed that my pointing out when you use a logical fallacy is somehow me using a logical fallacy.

Proving that you don't understand logical fallacies.

Wrong again. There was no appeal to authority.

You said in post #419 (and in numerous other posts) that I am wrong because "neither the law [or] the Bible agrees with you."

Claiming that something is true or untrue because X says so is an appeal to authority.

Granted, the authority you reference may be correct, but basing your argument on only that appeal remains (as I have said numerous times before) ineffective and unconvincing.

For example, for those who live outside the U.S. our laws concerning the not-yet-born don't matter much and are not used to define who is or is not a "human" or "person".

Also, for those who do not consider the Bible to be an authority on anything, what it declares won't matter at all to their personal beliefs about abortion.

By the way, as I said before, you have used this appeal to authority many times, however, as far as I know, you have yet to reference the specific laws or Biblical verses that support your claims.

Even though you have never supported any of your claims against me in this thread, I am hoping that you'd be willing to finally present the evidence from the law and the Bible that you claims support your argument

Considering your past behavior, I don't expect you to actually do this, but I would appreciate knowing where your claims come from rather than me assuming things.

Didn't we go over the fact that you do not understand logical fallacies and that you should not try to use them already?

It is so funny that you don't see the irony in using this appeal to authority to contest your use of those other appeals to authority.

Even if you had said that I do not understand logical fallacies and that I should not point out when you use them, your opinion is worth very little to me, so your appeal to your own authority remains, as I have said, ineffective and unconvincing.

Thank you for continuing to prove me correct.

Where did you get that crazy idea from? Citation needed. Remember, you are not a source.

Again, this is hilarious.

You dare to demand sources from me when you never back up any of your own claims?

Did you not just use yourself as a source to argue that I do not understand logical fallacies?

You are a walking contradiction. Filled with hypocrisies and double-standards.

Anyways, this "crazy idea" has been the basic assumption throughout all of human history.

Even liberal nut jobs who will one minute argue that the not-yet-born aren't human, then the next minute write a headline on People magazine, "She's having another baby!" while showing a picture of another pregnant celebrity.

Everyone everywhere knows that what is inside a pregnant woman is a baby.

Not in this matter. The Supreme Court is unlikely to reverse Roe vs. Wade.

I agree with this.

However, that hasn't stopped the crazy liberals from screaming that he would overturn it and do whatever they could to destroy his life.

Nope, but thanks for telling us that you do not understand what the Supreme Court does either.

Are you claiming that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn past decisions like Roe v. Wade?

Perhaps it is you that does not understand what the Supreme Court is capable of?

However, I am glad that you are more level-headed than the average crazy leftist nut-job.

You still have the burden of proof to support your ignorant claims.

Despite the fact that the not-yet-born would pass every single conceivable test that could be used to prove that something is "alive" or "human"?

Also, you have yet to reasonably define what it means to be a "person" (ever since your Terry Shiavo debacle), so how is there any burden of proof on me?

Again, I have all of human history, science (which as an atheist I thought you supported), and logic to determine that the not-yet-born are living human persons.

No, I am ignoring the attempt to change the topic.

You have continually used false claims about me to justify ignoring my arguments and posts.

Those posts I listed prove that you never once supported anything you claimed about me.

And there was no ad hominem.

Implying that I am a child and that I may have a serious mental issue rather than providing any evidence to back up your claims about me is the very definition of an ad hominem.

Dude! You really need to work on your logical fallacies. Your weak attempts to use them are truly comic.

Yeah...this is the second time that you erroneously claimed that my pointing out when you use a logical fallacy is somehow me using a logical fallacy.

Proving that you don't understand logical fallacies.

 

[Prestor John]

The rights to make medical decisions concerning ones own body.

I never advocated that.

Can you quote me arguing for this?

 

[Curious George]

I never advocated that.

Can you quote me arguing for this?

Let's draw the line at killing unwanted babies and work up from there.

I think it is clear that you are arguing that women should not get an abortion. I think that you have carefully distinguished legal from moral considerations. But let us not pretend that your position does not hold that laws prohibiting abortion are ok.

 

[Prestor John]

I think it is clear that you are arguing that women should not get an abortion. I think that you have carefully distinguished legal from moral considerations. But let us not pretend that your position does not hold that laws prohibiting abortion are ok.

All I have been doing in this thread is properly defining the not-yet-born.

If the not-yet-born are living human persons, then aborting them for the sake of convenience would be murder.

No one has the right to murder.

I'm okay with laws which prohibit murder, are you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which "rights" are you claiming I want denied anyone?

The right to abortion, and therefore other rights like the right to bodily security.

 

[Curious George]

All I have been doing in this thread is properly defining the not-yet-born.

If the not-yet-born are living human persons, then abortion would be murder.

No one has the right to murder.

I'm okay with laws which prohibit murder, are you?

Murder is a legal term. Abortion is not murder. As I said: it is clear that you are advocating for the limitation of a persons right to make medical decisions concerning ones own body.

I don't mind people making such arguments. I think that discussion of these issues is important. My objection is the playing innocent-"oh, I am not doing that."

Of course you are. It is demonstrated even further with your analogy to murder.

You asked which rights: I told you. You asked how so: I explained.

 

[Prestor John]

The right to abortion, and therefore other rights like the right to bodily security.

If the not-yet-born are living human persons then aborting them for the sake of convenience is murder.

No one has the right to murder.

 

[Prestor John]

Murder is a legal term. Abortion is not murder. As I said: it is clear that you are advocating for the limitation of a persons right to make medical decisions concerning ones own body.

I don't mind people making such arguments. I think that discussion of these issues is important. My objection is the playing innocent-"oh, I am not doing that."

Of course you are. It is demonstrated even further with your analogy to murder.

You asked which rights: I told you. You asked how so: I explained.

I'm actually advocating for the limitation of anyone making decisions concerning someone else's body.

The not-yet-born are unique and distinct living human persons.

Their bodies are not the mother's body. They are separate.