Pro-choice vs Abortion

[dianaiad]

But. You MUST invoke "magic" to claim that a clump of cells is a human-- and has more rights than the host body it has invaded... you have no science behind your distinction.

A. I have never claimed that this 'clump of cells' has more rights than the 'host body.' That I believe it should have some rights? Yes. That is the question under discussion; what 'rights' a conceptus/fetus should have.
B. It did not invade. It was invited.
C. It IS human. It is nothing else. It is not a person...'person,' like 'murder' is a cultural/legal classification, and is, in fact, the question being debated; whether this 'clump of cells' (which IS a human individual, unique and separate from either parent) should be given the classification 'person' or that its killing could be called 'murder' in certain circumstances.

Do not put words in my mouth, or make assumptions about my position I have not claimed. I repeat; my opinion regarding abortion has nothing at all to do with my religious beliefs.

Absolute BUNKUM. The DNA is merely a recipe, a kind of template-- there is MUCH Epigenetics to take place afterwards.

ALL of the subsequent development is because of Epigenetics-- a great deal of which is based on environmental factors! You 100% ignore this fact, and resort to a wrong, and niave idea that DNA is a Magic Blueprint or something.

Wrong.



More magical woo.



Wrong. Epigenetics can play a role-- and may well change the development beyond viability.

In other words, the fetus will become a human adult, or it will die. From whatever cause.

Or? Fail to change a female brain into a male brain (to match the external sex characteristics).

Or? Many other things can happen, not all of which are benign. Sometimes? You don't even get a recognizable human out the other end.

SO YOUR MAGIC PICTURE-BOOK IS LIKE A FAIRY TALE-- nice, but ultimately wrong.


LMAO! Wrong. Again. You have no clue what DNA actually is, DO YOU?

Actually, yes. I don't think you do, however.

 

[dianaiad]

The world is chock-full of humans-- who are breeding faster than rabbits. We could stand to have a few less humans, every year.

Since it's not human at the early stages, as it has no brain? End it before it becomes an actual baby, born into poverty, unwanted, unloved, no one cares--- off you go now, the Coal Mines need more worker-bees...

Your opinion does not define science here. Please show me the SCIENTIFIC line at which something that was not in any shape or form a human individual suddenly becomes one. I'm not the one using magical thinking here. You are.

you obviously do not think that humans are worth any sort of defense; the logic you use can support the killing of humans at any stage of development, before or after birth. In fact, I 'hear' the 'reasoning' of Stalin and his starvation of all the Ukrainians, of Hitler and the Jews, Gypsies and others, of many people who figured that the world would be better off if a whole bunch of people just...er...died.

Whenever I hear such logic, about how the world would be so much better off with a few less humans, I think.....'you first.'

 

[blü 2]

Cows also aren't sui juris, right ?
Their juridical status is much more similar to children than to women. Does that mean we all treat children like cows ?

It means you want to treat women like cows, to tell them they're not sui juris in respect of their bodies or their own fertility, because the anti-choice people are.

 

[Koldo]

It means you want to treat women like cows, to tell them they're not sui juris in respect of their bodies or their own fertility, because the anti-choice people are.

You didn't answer my question.
Do you mean we all treat children like cows ?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

And why is it against the law to destroy someone's property?

That's how property laws work. All laws, essentially, are based on the ownership of property-- I explained this already.

All laws that work, that is. Laws based on "morality"? Never work, and either have to be ignored or are applied with random chaos outcomes.

All "morality" laws are abusive to at least one or more sub-groups, and are seldom applied equally -- especially the larger group that created the "morality" law in the first place...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

A. I have never claimed that this 'clump of cells' has more rights than the 'host body.' That I believe it should have some rights? Yes. That is the question under discussion; what 'rights' a conceptus/fetus should have..

None? No rights of any kind? Until (if ever) they manage to grow large enough to NOT be an invasive parasite.

B. It did not invade. It was invited..

Not always. In fact? SELDOM is that the case. ESPECIALLY in the case where a woman is pregnant and desires NOT to be.

THIS IS 100% OF THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT-- ANYONE WANTING AN ABORTION DID NOT INVITE THE PARASITIC INVADER. KIND OF THE POINT OF AN ABORTION.

C. It IS human. .

No. It isn't. That which is asserted WITHOUT EVIDENCE can be dismissed WITHOUT ARGUMENT.

Do not put words in my mouth, or make assumptions about my position I have not claimed. I repeat; my opinion regarding abortion has nothing at all to do with my religious beliefs.
.

I'm pointing out the CONSEQUENCES of your anti-woman position.

In other words, the fetus will become a human adult, or it will die. From whatever cause.
.

Or? It lives-- but is a monster that isn't human. Ooops! YOU ARE WRONG. AGAIN.

 

[blü 2]

You didn't answer my question.
Do you mean we all treat children like cows ?

I mean you treat women like breeding cows, not entitled to control their own fertility.

You say that their fertility is your right to control, not theirs.

Children are not fertile. If they were, you'd be telling them the same thing.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Your opinion does not define science here. Please show me the SCIENTIFIC line at which something that was not in any shape or form a human individual suddenly becomes one. I'm not the one using magical thinking here. You are..

LMAO! Is a human sperm a human being? Is a human egg? No?

THERE YOU GO! You are seriously unacquainted with how this works, apparently.

Whenever I hear such logic, about how the world would be so much better off with a few less humans, I think.....'you first.'

no-- I think "let's start with all those who would TAKE AWAY RIGHTS from already adult humans"

All anti-choice/anti-women? That's what they do best: TAKE AWAY RIGHTS OF WOMAN WHO ARE ALREADY HERE-- in favor of something that isn't even human.

 

[dianaiad]

None? No rights of any kind? Until (if ever) they manage to grow large enough to NOT be an invasive parasite.


Not always. In fact? SELDOM is that the case. ESPECIALLY in the case where a woman is pregnant and desires NOT to be.

THIS IS 100% OF THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT-- ANYONE WANTING AN ABORTION DID NOT INVITE THE PARASITIC INVADER. KIND OF THE POINT OF AN ABORTION.



No. It isn't. That which is asserted WITHOUT EVIDENCE can be dismissed WITHOUT ARGUMENT.



I'm pointing out the CONSEQUENCES of your anti-woman position.



Or? It lives-- but is a monster that isn't human. Ooops! YOU ARE WRONG. AGAIN.

You are wrong. There has never been an instance where a fetus has grown, and been born, and NOT BEEN HUMAN.
Talk about 'magical thinking!"

No magical offspring that turns out to be a half/man, half/bull.

It doesn't happen.

And yes, a couple who has entered into consensual sex, understanding that such activity is what produces babies, is indeed inviting it.

The choice should be made before engaging in sexual activity. Birth control. It works very well, especially when multiple forms are used and used properly. Make your choice then. It's cheaper and a great deal healthier for the woman, as well as preventing many STD's.

If you have sex, knowing very well that sex makes babies, and you actually make one....well, there's this new human life that should be considered now, not just thrown away as if it were a bit of garbage; that individual is unique, and won't be repeated.

 

[dianaiad]

LMAO! Is a human sperm a human being? Is a human egg? No?

THERE YOU GO! You are seriously unacquainted with how this works, apparently.



no-- I think "let's start with all those who would TAKE AWAY RIGHTS from already adult humans"

All anti-choice/anti-women? That's what they do best: TAKE AWAY RIGHTS OF WOMAN WHO ARE ALREADY HERE-- in favor of something that isn't even human.

You are ranting, using your own magical thinking. What you are NOT doing is actually responding to me.

 

[Koldo]

That's how property laws work. All laws, essentially, are based on the ownership of property-- I explained this already.

All laws that work, that is. Laws based on "morality"? Never work, and either have to be ignored or are applied with random chaos outcomes.

All "morality" laws are abusive to at least one or more sub-groups, and are seldom applied equally -- especially the larger group that created the "morality" law in the first place...

Why do property laws work like that ?
What's up with not letting people get whatever they want whenever they feel like it ? What is the justification underlying those laws ?

 

[Koldo]

I mean you treat women like breeding cows, not entitled to control their own fertility.

You say that their fertility is your right to control, not theirs.

Children are not fertile. If they were, you'd be telling them the same thing.

But we still deny children control over their own lives in many aspects like what they eat, how much they eat, where they are allowed to go, and even who they can interact with, just to cite some examples. We do likewise with cows. If anything, the manner we treat children is similar to the way we treat cows in many ways.

Do we all treat children like cows then? If not, why not ? If you are going to single out reproduction I want you to explain why you feel justified in doing so.

 

[blü 2]

You didn't answer my question.
Do you mean we all treat children like cows ?

Yawn.

 

[Koldo]

Yawn.

Is this all ?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But we still deny children control over their own lives in many aspects like what they eat, how much they eat, where they are allowed to go, and even who they can interact with, just to cite some examples. We do likewise with cows. If anything, the manner we treat children is similar to the way we treat cows in many ways.

Do we all treat children like cows then? If not, why not ? If you are going to single out reproduction I want you to explain why you feel justified in doing so.

There are some parallels, but children are not cattle. We are not raising cattle to think for themselves and eventually join human society as adults. Certainly the parallels between rearing cattle and rearing children are not the same as treating women like cows, where their reproductive choices are being decided for them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LMAO! Is a human sperm a human being? Is a human egg? No?

THERE YOU GO! You are seriously unacquainted with how this works, apparently.



no-- I think "let's start with all those who would TAKE AWAY RIGHTS from already adult humans"

All anti-choice/anti-women? That's what they do best: TAKE AWAY RIGHTS OF WOMAN WHO ARE ALREADY HERE-- in favor of something that isn't even human.

What about any organ or random body part? What is stopping us from arbitrarily deciding kidneys are human. Human kidneys are human cells, human tissue and human DNA. Within the body of the host they are living, but cannot exist independent of the host without extraordinary effort. Does the life of a kidney start at urination?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's how property laws work. All laws, essentially, are based on the ownership of property-- I explained this already.

All laws that work, that is. Laws based on "morality"? Never work, and either have to be ignored or are applied with random chaos outcomes.

All "morality" laws are abusive to at least one or more sub-groups, and are seldom applied equally -- especially the larger group that created the "morality" law in the first place...

Those that fail, do so, because the morality is subjective and relative to the morality of a subset of the population under the rule of law. That, and those remove rights held by one class of people merely to uphold the personal belief of another class of people. Those that do succeed often do so, because they transcend classes and benefit the entire society. Laws against murder are beneficial to both religious classes and secular. But no law can control or prevent a person from having murderous thoughts. One group may find such thoughts morally wrong, but their morality is not the law, nor can it be enforced in any way if it were. Porn might be a better example, since there are those that do not have moral issues with it, while there are probably far fewer out of all classes that would consider harboring persistent murderous thoughts as useful or even healthy, though not illegal.

 

[blü 2]

Is this all ?

No, it's not all. The issue is whether you think women have the same rights as breeding cows, or whether you think they're our fellow humans.

 

[Koldo]

There are some parallels, but children are not cattle. We are not raising cattle to think for themselves and eventually join human society as adults. Certainly the parallels between rearing cattle and rearing children are not the same as treating women like cows, where their reproductive choices are being decided for them.

They are not the same, but my point is: if it is fair game to say women are treated as cows by pro-life then it would also be true that children are treated as cows by everyone. You need to single out reproduction in an arbitrary manner to say otherwise.

 

[Koldo]

No, it's not all. The issue is whether you think women have the same rights as breeding cows, or whether you think they're our fellow humans.

"Do we all treat children like cows then? If not, why not ? If you are going to single out reproduction I want you to explain why you feel justified in doing so."