Overturning Roe V Wade

[mikkel_the_dane]

I never said my religious beliefs are science. Why do you keep saying I am saying that?

Because you say science agrees with you. It doesn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More obfuscation as a way to avoid answering my question.
talking about me so you won't have to address the topic of the debate, a typical atheist ploy.
You can't point out how my argument fails or you would point it out.

This debate is not about me. Why can't you address the issue at hand, which is when human life begins?

Human life begins at conception so abortion is taking a human life. You cannot get around that no matter how hard you try.

Sorry but you are wrong again. You are not getting the answer that you want, largely due to your errors. That does not mean that there is obfuscation going on. If anything that is your doing since you will not follow the proper rules of debate, number one being Do not use logical fallacies. I did point out how your argument fails. It is based upon a logical fallacy and nothing more.

 

[Trailblazer]

I accept biological human, but not soul human.

Fine, then let's talk about the biological human.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

More obfuscation as a way to avoid answering my question.
talking about me so you won't have to address the topic of the debate, a typical atheist ploy.
You can't point out how my argument fails or you would point it out.

This debate is not about me. Why can't you address the issue at hand, which is when human life begins?

Human life begins at conception so abortion is taking a human life. You cannot get around that no matter how hard you try.

I wouldn't. I just point out that biological human is not the same as soul human and that I believe in personhood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, person is not a fact. That is a social construct.
You won't get me to do a contradiction on the word fact and claim biology is a fact and personhood is a fact. You might catch me on another one, but not this one.

Yes, it is. And this is when one tries to reason using morals and not science. A purely scientific argument would have us keeping granny plugged in because she was a human, if that is our standard.

Morals can be much less clear than science. Science is easy in some ways since the answer is repeatedly confirmed once one finds it. Not so much for morals.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because you say science agrees with you. It doesn't.

It absolutely does agree with when life begins.
#537 Trailblazer

The fact that I believe the soul exists is irrelevant to the point that life begins at conception.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fine, then let's talk about the biological human.

That is not the same as human soul or personhood. The latter 2 are beliefs. The former is a fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fine, then let's talk about the biological human.

Why? Talking about the biological human leaves morals out of the issue. Killing any being or keeping it alive is just an event. Not a right or wrong. This is not an arena for a scientific debate.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, it is. And this is when one tries to reason using morals and not science. A purely scientific argument would have us keeping granny plugged in because she was a human, if that is our standard.

Morals can be much less clear than science. Science is easy in some ways since the answer is repeatedly confirmed once one finds it. Not so much for morals.

Well, if she has no head, she in my belief system has no personhood, even if the rest of the body is kept alive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It absolutely does agree with when life begins.
#537 Trailblazer

The fact that I believe the soul exists is irrelevant to the point that life begins at conception.

Biologically yes. But biology has no morals. It does not matter what is done to the fetus by biology. All one can do is to measure and observe an organism's response.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because you say science agrees with you. It doesn't.

Science does agree with my religious beliefs, that life begins at conception.
Bringing the soul into this is just a red herring.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It absolutely does agree with when life begins.
#537 Trailblazer

The fact that I believe the soul exists is irrelevant to the point that life begins at conception.

Yeah, but you are still conflating two different versions of human,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, if she has no head, she in my belief system has no personhood, even if the rest of the body is kept alive.

And I agree. Where morals start to come in is "How much of her head does she need to be human?" But I gave a simple example. It should show that there is no problem with very early abortions. The later it gets the more difficult it may be to justify them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science does agree with my religious beliefs, that life begins at conception.
Bringing the soul into this is just a red herring.

Then you stop doing it. Remove the posts where you did that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science does agree with my religious beliefs, that life begins at conception.
Bringing the soul into this is just a red herring.

So what?

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry but you are wrong again. You are not getting the answer that you want, largely due to your errors. That does not mean that there is obfuscation going on. If anything that is your doing since you will not follow the proper rules of debate, number one being Do not use logical fallacies. I did point out how your argument fails. It is based upon a logical fallacy and nothing more.

Why then are you using logical fallacies?

Deliberately clouding the message to help press home a point or to avoid answering a difficult question means you are committing the Obfuscation Fallacy.
10 Argumentative Fallacies Argumentum ad hominem ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even death is not clear.
What Is Death, Exactly?

It's also not helpful you keep using the same source. I pulled up a few in a couple minutes exploring the complications when trying to determine when life begins. It is no different for when life ends.

Death is taking a vacation in Ohio.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why then are you using logical fallacies?

Deliberately clouding the message to help press home a point or to avoid answering a difficult question means you are committing the Obfuscation Fallacy.
10 Argumentative Fallacies Argumentum ad hominem ...

I never did. Once gain if anyone obfuscated it was you be demanding to use a logical fallacy.

No one has said "You are wrong because you used a logical fallacy". People have pointed out that your argument is of no value because you used a logical fallacy. You seem to be taking the fact that you made a mistake and were corrected personally.

Just change your argument and drop the fallacy. If you can't then there was no point to the argument in the first place.

You also keep ignoring the fact that no one has disagreed with you on the biological definition of when life begins. That means that your claim of people ducking the question is false. Where is the obfuscation?

 

[Trailblazer]

@Trailblazer , if you want to claim that is your religious belief that is fine. Then simply do not get an abortion. But it appears that you are supporting preventing others from getting abortions. For that you would need some sort of proper argument. A religious one does not cut it.

How many times do I have to say that I am not supporting preventing others from getting abortions?
All I have is a personal opinion about abortion. Baha'is do not take political stances, only moral ones, but we do not expect other people to agree with us.

“The Faith which this order serves, safeguards and promotes is … essentially supernatural, supranational, entirely non-political, non-partisan, and diametrically opposed to any policy or school of thought that seeks to exalt any particular race, class or nation.” The Promised Day Is Come, vi

 

[Subduction Zone]

How many times do I have to say that I am not supporting preventing others from getting abortions?
All I have is a personal opinion about abortion. Baha'is do not take political stances, only moral ones, but we do not expect other people to agree with us.

“The Faith which this order serves, safeguards and promotes is … essentially supernatural, supranational, entirely non-political, non-partisan, and diametrically opposed to any policy or school of thought that seeks to exalt any particular race, class or nation.” The Promised Day Is Come, vi

Then why are you debating? We know your views. We do not need to know any more if you are not proposing a change.