Satanists Claim Abortion a Religious Ritual

[Fallen Prophet]

Of course the unborn is a part of the woman's body. It's literally attached by the umbilical cord which is connected to the woman's uterus.
Sorry, but you don't know enough about pregnancy to get to dictate to other people what they can do with their own bodies. Go take care of your own body.

So you would argue that a symbiont is also "part of the body" of its host?

 

[Sheldon]

But you seem to be a member of the "bodily autonomy" camp that believes the not-yet-born child is somehow absorbed by the mother - that they are not separate and distinct.

They're not separate, that is axiomatic, they are topologically connected throughout, and the blastocyst or developing foetus uses and is dependant on the woman's immune system, and her metabolism, and gets nutrients and oxygen directly from her blood.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Ah, no. It's another point. You can save your snark. What's sad is that you ignored the point and the question.

You've literally called abortion murder in almost every post. I'm just following your thoughts to their logical conclusion.
I had a friend who has MS, who had a miscarriage. She didn't know at the time, that there were special things she had to do, because she had MS, that she didn't know about and didn't do, that probably caused her to miscarry her wanted child. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

I would never denigrate any woman for having a miscarriage.

No pregnancy is 100% guaranteed to reach completion.

You can throw blame and "probably"s around all you like - but that doesn't prove that any crime was committed.

Fact is - you don't know if what your friends did or did not do lead to the death of her not-yet-born child - and I believe it is inappropriate to make any definite claim about that.

An "abortion" - on the other hand - is only successful when the not-yet-born child dies - making it murder.

 

[Sheldon]

An "abortion" - on the other hand - is only successful when the not-yet-born child dies - making it murder.

Nope, it is not murder if it a lawful abortion, by definition. You clearly want it to be classed as murder, but it currently is not. However research shows that 6/10 people in America don't share your position. The removal of a woman's bodily autonomy would certainly also conflict with their constitutional rights. So such state legislation would likely be overturned at federal level.

I don't really see such laws ever gaining any real traction here in the UK, thankfully.

 

[Heyo]

The removal of a woman's bodily autonomy would certainly also conflict with their constitutional rights. So such state legislation would likely be overturned at federal level.

Nope. The US don't recognize a right to bodily autonomy in their constitution.

 

[Sheldon]

Nope. The US don't recognize a right to bodily autonomy in their constitution.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated".

And the 14th Amendment
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

A little more tenuous, but cited in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
"Primary Holding
A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception."

I realise it doesn't specifically mention bodily autonomy, but since it is a pivotal right to freedom, they'd likely not want to uphold laws that violate it.

Then again I'm not a lawyer, nor American. For now I think a better safeguard is that research shows 6 out 10 Americans think abortions should be legal.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Yep. That is the point of contention.

I do not understand why that is so.

In Post #316 you said that there was no "inalienable right to life" mentioned in the U.S. Constitution - just as there is not Constitutional right to "bodily autonomy".

You have also argued in Post #533 that killing someone in self-defense - or rather - killing someone to prevent them from killing someone else was a "necessary evil".

I don't see a logical contention here.

You create a (very arbitrary) division of people and for one group killing them is OK and for the other it isn't.

Actually - which crimes may warrant death is part of a very structured and well-reasoned system of law.

That is exact opposite of "arbitrary".

That is what I call inconsistent.

I cannot see how you came to that conclusion.

Semantics.

The meaning behind our words is crucial to any discussion or debate.

You make "innocent" more important than "person".

No - I am arguing that an "innocent person" is more important than a "guilty person".

If a person is worthy of death at the moment they are attempting to murder someone else - they are still worthy of death after they have committed the murder.

No statute of limitations on murder.

It is obviously a better outcome if they were to die while in the act - to save their potential victim - but death should still be the outcome of their actions.

It isn't, it's just an adjective.

I don't understand your sudden arguments against language.

Haven't you been quibbling over the definition of the word "murder" and its proper usage for some time now?

Yet now - all of a sudden - the meaning behind our words no longer matter? Adjectives no longer matter?

Your argument loses all consistency and relevance when you start claiming that there is no meaning to the words we use and certain words no longer matter.

And the fact that this only applies to the words your opponent uses - it's very superficial and self-serving.

With the same logic I could easily argue that "not yet born" has the same condemning quality as "no longer innocent".

Ok - make that argument.

The not-yet-born are actively engaging in leaching off nutrients from their host.

The old "the not-yet-born are parasites" argument.

Since the definitions of words matter - it is important to point out that a parasite and its "host" are never of the same species.

And why does your argument end with only the not-yet-born?

My already-born children are actively leeching off my - time, energy, resources, attention, etc. - are they also "parasites" guilty of some crime and worthy of death?

They make them morning-sick. Innocent?

Completely.

Even if the not-yet-born could be classified as "parasites" - they would still be completely innocent.

They are not responsible for anything happening to them or their "host" and they are free from any moral wrong.

Yes, that may come from the fact that I never have met a person with such a screwed up logic.

What is so "screwed up" about it?

That's why I went back to the basics. Our primary differences are not over abortion but over how to argue.

I believe that people should present their arguments and support them with facts and well-reasoned opinion.

You believe you can present an argument and claim that it is right without facts or well-reasoned opinions and that other people are wrong "for reasons".

When we have agreed about how to talk.

How about we start at the very basic of basics - that words have meaning and they are important.

We can't claim that certain words and their meanings no longer matter just because our opponent uses them.

Can we at least agree on that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes - that's what conception means -

"the action of conceiving a child or of a child being conceived"

what is conception? - Search (bing.com)

"the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both"

Conception Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

"Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization."

"The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote."

Conception | definition of conception by Medical dictionary (thefreedictionary.com)

You may find this website helpful - Conception: Timeline, Process, Signs, and Preparation (verywellhealth.com)

I will quote a couple of key points from it -

"Conception is the joining of a sperm and egg, also known as fertilization."

"Conception marks the first step toward pregnancy—the sperm and egg have joined together, creating what is known as a zygote."

"Immediately after fertilization, the egg and sperm have joined to make a single-cell embryo that is called a zygote. During this time, it divides to form a ball of cells called a blastocyst. A blastocyst is made up of an inner group of cells with an outer shell."

It is literally when human life begins - the moment of conception.

What do you mean?

As I already explained above conception is when the ovum is fertilized by a sperm - creating a zygote - a child.

It is true that if the fertilized egg does not attach to the uterine wall it will not develop - but that doesn't make it "nothing".

I'm going to go back to that website I cited above - Conception: Timeline, Process, Signs, and Preparation (verywellhealth.com) to better explain this -

"After an egg is fertilized, it must implant in the lining of the uterus in order to lead to pregnancy."

A woman may not become pregnant until the fertilized egg implants in her uterine wall - debatable - but the child was already created at the moment of conception.

None of this matter to you anyway - because even if it were "something" you'd still argue that a woman can decide to murder it.

It's clear that you don't know enough about the process.

But you seem to be a member of the "bodily autonomy" camp that believes the not-yet-born child is somehow absorbed by the mother - that they are not separate and distinct.

Is this correct?

How so?

I don't recall making that comparison.

I remember making a point about what constitutes a "lawful killing" has been known to change.

Today - we recognize that the killing of recaptured slaves was murder.

And I believe that sometime soon we will recognize that the killing of the not-yet-born was also murder.

You know - when you consider that the fate of not-yet-born is in the hands of someone else - they have no freedom or choice - how are the not-yet-born not like slaves?

The moment of conception is literally not when human life begins because if it doesn't implant into the uterine wall, it's going to just be flushed out and that life is gone.

So if you think that life happens at the moment of conception, then every time a woman has her period, she could potentially be "killing" a baby (in your opinion). Which is the very same point I was pointing out to you before about not thinking through the logic of your position. Following your line of logic, women who have miscarriages are potential murderers. And women who have their periods are potential murderers.

Yes, bodily autonomy is paramount. It's all we have, when you really get down to it.

Please stop comparing fully grown and developed, sentient human beings with full lives and social connections to blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses. It's a terrible comparison.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you would argue that a symbiont is also "part of the body" of its host?

I just explained how it works. You claimed a blastocyst/zygote/fetus isn't attached to\part of a woman's body when it's literally connected to it in multiple ways.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would never denigrate any woman for having a miscarriage.

And yet that's the logical conclusion that follows from your line of argument.

No pregnancy is 100% guaranteed to reach completion.

You can throw blame and "probably"s around all you like - but that doesn't prove that any crime was committed.

Fact is - you don't know if what your friends did or did not do lead to the death of her not-yet-born child - and I believe it is inappropriate to make any definite claim about that.

An "abortion" - on the other hand - is only successful when the not-yet-born child dies - making it murder.

 

[Sheldon]

Actually - which crimes may warrant death is part of a very structured and well-reasoned system of law.

Indeed, now refresh our memory, does that system allow lawful abortions, that research shows 6 out of 10 Americans agree should remain lawful?

 

[Secret Chief]

For now I think a better safeguard is that research shows 6 out 10 Americans think abortions should be legal.

That's not exactly comforting, suggesting that 40% think it should be illegal.

 

[Sheldon]

The meaning behind our words is crucial to any discussion or debate.

No - I am arguing that an "innocent person" is more important than a "guilty person".

How can insentient clump of cells be other than innocent, what meaning is there in calling something insentient and uncappable of wrongdoing innocent? My toenail clippings are innocent by that rationale, should I not cut them? A person is defined as
a human being regarded as an individual. A blastocyst or developing foetus is not, it is topologically connected to the woman whose body it is a part of, living by using her immune system, metabolism, and getting nutrients and oxygen directly from her blood.

You can't claim that the meaning behind our words is crucial to any discussion or debate, then arbitrarily ignore their meaning, as you have done by labelling legal abortions as murder for example. That's what is inconsistent in your arguments.

 

[Sheldon]

That's not exactly comforting, suggesting that 40% think it should be illegal.

I am not suggesting this fact is "comforting". It was cited in response to a specific claim.

 

[Secret Chief]

Could you quote where I remotely suggested this fact was "comforting"? You need to read it in context.

I did. What I meant (to put it another way) is that it is worrying that 40% think it should be illegal. You can get political traction with 40%. Look at brexit.

 

[Sheldon]

I did. What I meant (to put it another way) is that it is worrying that 40% think it should be illegal. You can get political traction with 40%. Look at brexit.

Well I can't say what may happen in the future of course, but 60% is a clear majority for now. In the UK the issue never seems to dominate political debate the way it does in the US, thankfully.

 

[Secret Chief]

Well I can't say what may happen in the future of course, but 60% is a clear majority for now. In the UK the issue never seems to dominate political debate the way it does in the US, thankfully.

Yes and let's hope it stays that way.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

The moment of conception is literally not when human life begins because if it doesn't implant into the uterine wall, it's going to just be flushed out and that life is gone.

You realize that you immediately and totally contradicted yourself?

"The moment of conception is literally not when human life begins because if it doesn't implant into the uterine wall, it's going to just be flushed out and that life is gone." (Bold and italics added)

What "life is gone" when the fertilized egg does not implant into the uterine wall if human life does not begin at the moment of conception?

So if you think that life happens at the moment of conception, then every time a woman has her period, she could potentially be "killing" a baby (in your opinion).

I understand the horrible and illogical point you are trying to make.

If a pregnancy does not occur by the time the woman sheds her uterine lining - the fertilized egg will be "flushed" out - and I do not see at all how that could be seen as a "killing" of any kind.

"Abortion" - the actual topic of our discussion - is the intentional termination of a pregnancy - the killing of a not-yet-born child.

What you are describing is not an "abortion" or "killing" since no action or inaction caused the death of the not-yet-born child.

This would be like arguing that someone who unknowingly and unintentionally infected someone else with the flu should be accused of "killing" that person if they were to die from complications involving the flu.

Most things are outside of our control, and no one can be blamed for what is outside of their control.

It is supreme arrogance, perversion and cruelty to try and claim that a woman should be held responsible if her menstruation causes the death of her not-yet-born child and thank God she will most likely not even be aware of it.

And I used the term "baby" to describe the not-yet-born one time - and I immediately recanted and corrected once it was pointed out to me.

So - you and yours need to stop trying to claim that I am constantly referring to the not-yet-born as "babies" - it simply isn't true.

Which is the very same point I was pointing out to you before about not thinking through the logic of your position.

The position I have been maintaining is not connected to your line of reasoning at all.

All you are trying to do is claim that I would somehow blame victims of circumstance - and I would never do that - because it would make no sense.

Not to mention it would be totally evil.

Following your line of logic, women who have miscarriages are potential murderers. And women who have their periods are potential murderers.

Not at all. That makes literally no sense.

Yes, bodily autonomy is paramount. It's all we have, when you really get down to it.

Bodily autonomy is not an absolute - especially when it comes to how we interact with other people.

When it comes to "civilized society" - we place a lot of limits on what people can and cannot do with their bodies.

There are all kinds of laws restricting what we can do - such as those regarding public nudity/urination/defecation, sexual assault, the classic shouting "Fire!" in a theater, purposely exposing other people to secondhand smoke - or really any action that can hurt another individual.

Yet - these limitations are rarely criticized as unjustified infringements upon one’s "bodily autonomy" - so why is limiting "abortion" criticized as unjustified?

The claim of "My body - my choice" is a form of begging the question - because it assumes that there is no second individual involved in the pregnancy - the not-yet-born child.

Not only this - but it also commits the fallacy of special pleading - claiming that the mother had the "right" to "bodily autonomy" while failing to acknowledge that such a claim would inherently mean that others have a "right" to "bodily autonomy" as well.

We shouldn't kill others because that would violate their "bodily autonomy".

Please stop comparing fully grown and developed, sentient human beings with full lives and social connections to blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses.

You realize that this is the same mentality used by those who commit unspeakable acts against the already-born?

You are claiming that the "fully grown" are more valuable - more worthy of living - than the "not fully grown".

- Please don't kill children.

You are claiming that the "fully developed" are more valuable - more worthy of living - than the "not fully developed".

- Please don't kill the mentally handicapped.

You are claiming that those that are "sentient" are more valuable - more worthy of living - than those that are "not sentient".

- Please don't kill people in comas.

You are claiming that those with "full lives" are more valuable - more worthy of living - than those who do not have "full lives"

- Please don't kill those who do not have "full lives" (whatever that means).

You are claiming that those who have "social connections" are more valuable - more worthy of living - than those who do not have "social connections".

- Please don't kill the introverts.

It's a terrible comparison.

I believe that all human beings should receive equitable treatment under the law.

It does not matter if they are not "fully grown and developed, sentient human beings with full lives and social connections" or "blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses" - no one has the right to murder them.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I just explained how it works. You claimed a blastocyst/zygote/fetus isn't attached to\part of a woman's body when it's literally connected to it in multiple ways.

Being "attached" or "connected to" does not make the not-yet-born child a "part" of their mother's body.

When I plug my lamp into the outlet - it is "attached" to the wall - it is "connected to" the power grid - but it is not a "part" of my house.

The lamp is a separate and individual device.

I claimed that the not-yet-born child is not a part of the mother's body.

The not-yet-born child has their own body - which is distinct from their mother's - yet they are "attached" or "connected to" their mother.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

And yet that's the logical conclusion that follows from your line of argument.

Not at all.