A Conception's Right To Life

[Mare Tranquillity]

I remember the US prior to Roe vs Wade in the era of coat hanger wire abortions and numerous other horrifying stories when a woman could not get a legal abortion.

I have traveled through many countries like Saudi Arabia where abortions are strictly illegal, yet women endure the more sadistic and painful procedures to abort unwanted pregnancies. These include excruciatingly painful pushing and the shoving of the mother's abdomen to dislodge the fetus and force a miscarriage.

Just remember, there is not a country or a province in this world where abortions occur on a very regular basis. Its legality or illegality is not a consideration to a desperate woman who is willing to undergo any trauma to abort the baby.

Those who wish to abolish Roe vs. Wade will have the blood and unnecessary death of many young women on their hands if their efforts are successful in outlawing abortions. Oh, yea, the fetus always perishes with the mother.

You know what my good Christian brother said when confronted with the information in your excellent post, Hobo? He said, "It serves them right, it's God's punishment on them for trying to kill their babies."

Nice guy, compassionate, poorly educated, but FAITHFUL.

 

[Chip]

I've heard of aversion therapy, but what do you call this? Abuse therapy? It reminds me of Army food, a dish called "chipped beef on toast" for which there was a somewhat more colorful nickname among the troops. With that nickname in mind I thought that perhaps you'd like to name your new abuse therapy technique something appropriate like "Chit on a Chingle".

Your verbal diarrhea not withstanding I note that you have reduced all the reasons that more than 3 billion women might have for an abortion down to a single word: convenience. With all your pop psych training, and all your science, and all your experience, don't you think that's just a bit simplistic?

I have to admit to having enjoyed your pop psychological analysis of me since it's hardly what an ethical therapist would resort to without any real substance. Get your training with Siho at Whattsa Matta U?

Ad hominems? You are practically the Queen of the Ad Hominems:
An internally raging, but vacillating, narcissitic, misanthropic, sociopath, dysfunctionally displacing and transfering control issues over the behavior of murder, coupled with unresolved past damage that motivates your utilitarian moral relativism, and you despise authorities in general in an oppositional defiant disordered manner and specifically when they disagree with your narcissistic point of view of individualism of neanderthal narcissists rule, and displaying your transference and displacement of those who have "owned" you and your "freedom" in the past, and showing your penis self-hatred of "men" stemming from your transsexuality issues and shame.
and you're giving me grief about them. I've been very reserved in my responses to you.

Erroneous and topically irrelevant.

Remember, the psychology of us posters is fair game in this thread ...

... And accurately summing up your obvious motivations in psychological terms is relevant, and is not an ad hominem.

Calling me names and slandering my character without information, let alone the knowledge to apply it, simply renders your attempt at my character assassination to be an ad hominem attack.

There's no point you dragging science into this in an attempt to shore up your moralistic viewpoint.

Translation: "I, Mare, realize that science presents the foundational premise that clearly makes abortion murder or manslaughter in many cases, so I simply don't want science involved in the matter."

Lives end all the time in science, there's no moral valuation placed on dying. Moralizing is left to the churches, lawyers, and individuals--not codified in science texts.

Irrelevant to the fact that science has presented that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

That's all science does or needs to do.

The determination of whether murderous abortion is right or wrong is left to society.

I note that you have reduced all the reasons that more than 3 billion women might have for an abortion down to a single word: convenience.

As usual, Mare, your "notes" are merely your conveniently contrived fantasies.

Abortion is murder when it is employed for non-life-or-death-self-defense reasons.

That's what I've said all along -- it's only likely murder in those situations.

When it is employed for the reason of life-or-death-self-defense, to truly safe the mother's life as a last resort, it is not murder.

You play fast and loose with the facts that others have stated, Mare.

You lose credibility when you do so.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Erroneous and topically irrelevant.Remember, the psychology of us posters is fair game in this thread ...... And accurately summing up your obvious motivations in psychological terms is relevant, and is not an ad hominem.Calling me names and slandering my character without information, let alone the knowledge to apply it, simply renders your attempt at my character assassination to be an ad hominem attack.Translation: "I, Mare, realize that science presents the foundational premise that clearly makes abortion murder or manslaughter in many cases, so I simply don't want science involved in the matter."Irrelevant to the fact that science has presented that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.That's all science does or needs to do.The determination of whether murderous abortion is right or wrong is left to society.As usual, Mare, your "notes" are merely your conveniently contrived fantasies.Abortion is murder when it is employed for non-life-or-death-self-defense reasons.That's what I've said all along -- it's only likely murder in those situations.When it is employed for the reason of life-or-death-self-defense, to truly safe the mother's life as a last resort, it is not murder.
You play fast and loose with the facts that others have stated, Mare.You lose credibility when you do so.

Mental constipation AND verbal diarrhea. I disagree with you and your appeals to science to support your moral views is pointless. I don't think that you should be able to run women's lives, end of story. All your pop psych attacks on me are "Erroneous and topically irrelevant" to quote a well-known pop psychologist (can I call you Pop?).

Many things can be called murder, but your selective indignation that requires others to solve the problem for YOU seems a tad hypocritical to me. Forcing women to bear babies that no one wants, babies YOU don't want, babies that will perish for lack of care, doesn't make sense to me. After you make a place for these babies in the world, in your life, then talk to me. Till then you are just another hypocritical man trying to force women to bear the brunt of your self-righteous (but non-religious) beliefs.

I think abortions are a really bad idea, but forcing women to carry and birth them into a world where they will be neglected is even worse. All the high-brow moralistic posturing in the world will not change the fact that in this culture these babies are not wanted by anybody--especially the Chips of the world--so better they die in utero than starving for food and affection in a crib or filthy apartment denied by their fathers, scorned by their society, and ignored by their government.

Where would you put the purported 40 million babies who have been aborted? How would you feed them? Clothe them, house them, and educate them? Who would you get to love them and make them into civilized people? Well, their mothers of course. Would you help them do the job? Would you make health care and daycare available to them? No, of course not, that would be socialism, right? You excoriate me, yet I've met dung beetles with more compassion than you have exhibited on this thread.

 

[Chip]

Mental constipation AND verbal diarrhea. I disagree with you and your appeals to science to support your moral views is pointless. I don't think that you should be able to run women's lives, end of story. All your pop psych attacks on me are "Erroneous and topically irrelevant" to quote a well-known pop psychologist (can I call you Pop?).

Many things can be called murder, but your selective indignation that requires others to solve the problem for YOU seems a tad hypocritical to me. Forcing women to bear babies that no one wants, babies YOU don't want, babies that will perish for lack of care, doesn't make sense to me. After you make a place for these babies in the world, in your life, then talk to me. Till then you are just another hypocritical man trying to force women to bear the brunt of your self-righteous (but non-religious) beliefs.

I think abortions are a really bad idea, but forcing women to carry and birth them into a world where they will be neglected is even worse. All the high-brow moralistic posturing in the world will not change the fact that in this culture these babies are not wanted by anybody--especially the Chips of the world--so better they die in utero than starving for food and affection in a crib or filthy apartment denied by their fathers, scorned by their society, and ignored by their government.

Where would you put the purported 40 million babies who have been aborted? How would you feed them? Clothe them, house them, and educate them? Who would you get to love them and make them into civilized people? Well, their mothers of course. Would you help them do the job? Would you make health care and daycare available to them? No, of course not, that would be socialism, right? You excoriate me, yet I've met dung beetles with more compassion than you have exhibited on this thread.

All completely erroneous and irrelevant.

Once born, a baby cannot be murdered under the law for all of the reasons you cite above for which you would murder a pre-natal.

Again, you are simply appealing to the bias of ageism here, and that appeal is morally wrong.

You hide behind the skirt of law, when law has yet to catch up to the foundational facts of truth presented by science that unconjecturably presents the newly conceived as a person, a human being in that person's earliest age of life.

You commit here the bias of ageism, arguing that there are certain ages in a person's life where murdering them is okay.

I disagree ... and so does the overwhleming vast majority who are onotologically based, not utilitarian based, and who know the scientific facts of the matter.

I find your murder with appeal to ageism to be heinous in its irrationalized butchery.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

All completely erroneous and irrelevant.Once born, a baby cannot be murdered under the law for all of the reasons you cite above for which you would murder a pre-natal.Again, you are simply appealing to the bias of ageism here, and that appeal is morally wrong.You hide behind the skirt of law, when law has yet to catch up to the foundational facts of truth presented by science that unconjecturably presents the newly conceived as a person, a human being in that person's earliest age of life.You commit here the bias of ageism, arguing that there are certain ages in a person's life where murdering them is okay.I disagree ... and so does the overwhleming vast majority who are onotologically based, not utilitarian based, and who know the scientific facts of the matter.I find your murder with appeal to ageism to be heinous in its irrationalized butchery.

Murder by neglect is murder none the less. You would force them to be born and then abandon them. If it makes you feel better to campaign as you do for only the unborn life while allowing born life to wither away, then good for you. I'm not like that.

Ageism? But you only support life before it's born. Isn't that ageism as well? And don't misquote me in your frenetic drive to demonize me, I never said that I thought abortion was okay. I think it's better than many of the alternatives, that's all.

I find your murder by neglect "to be heinous in its irrationalized butchery", and hypocritical as well.

 

[Chip]

If we concede the point that everyone has a right to life,

Indeed, everyone does posses the right to life from the moment of conception.

then we are faced with two critical questions: 1) who has the right to define the meaning of life

Irrelevant, and a basis only for pro-abortionist sophistry, as it's likely intended.

The "meaning" of life is not an issue here.

The existence of a person, a unique individual human being, is what needs to be determined.

And it is the job of science, in this modern day of rational respect for the facts of truth, to make that determination ...

... And indeed science has made the determination that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live that person's life at the moment of conception.

That's a given.

It's not a matter for rational conjecture.

under what circumstances does a person loose the right of life.

A person never loses their right to life -- never.

The only time a person can rightly not be held accountable for violating another's right to life is when the person who takes another's life was acting in self-defense of his or other's lives when those lives were immediately truly threatened by the person whose life was taken.

This was determined ages ago, and has never really been a matter for rational conjecture or in need of further review.

Again, this too is already decided.

Answers to these questions can come from many different places.

Irrelevant.

It's not how many places answers come from.

It's what answers are correct.

Some people can find the answer in their religious beliefs. Others put their trust in the established legal system. Others may find some divine inspiration, others may feel they have inspired wisdom within their brains.

All irrelevant to the need for the answers to be accurately correct.

The correct answers to these questions are as I have stated above.

They have long been commonly known.

The basic problem here is the source of your wisdom and your conclusions often contradict with other people's source and conclusions. Out of all the sources for wisdom, does one source holds the trump card?

Again, the source is irrelevant.

What matters is that the answer is correct.

The answers that are correct, the answer that I've given above, those hold trump, no matter what source they come from.

There are many circumstances where different authorities must make determinations about when something is alive or dead;

Irrelevant.

Determining whether someone is alive or dead has nothing to do with the fact that murdering them is wrong.

Your rabbit trail sophistry is obvious.

and when someone has lost his right to live.

No one can rightly determine if someone has lost their right to life.

That is because that right to life is not ours to take away, ever.

People who judge whether someone should be killed do so erroneously with respect to that person's right to life.

Is a fetus in the mother's womb alive,

Science has made it clear that a fetus is a person, a unique individual human being, and that's not a matter for rational conjecture.

That's an obvious reality for the overwhelming vast majority of us.

is it simply a integral organic part of the mother?

DNA and life science has made it crystal clear that a fetus is not a part of the mother, but is a separate unique individual human being, a separate person from the mother.

Again, this is not a matter for rational conjecture.

Is a human that can no longer breath or eat still alive,

Irrelevant.

A person at the end of their life, dying, is not a person at the beginning of their life, growing.

A newly conceived person is at the beginning of that person's life, growing.

There is no "dying" or "death" considerations to be rationally applied to the newly conceived human being.

Your spinning of sophistry was obvious from the beginning.

or has he entered the first stage of death?

Your topical irrelevancies continue.

A growing newly conceived person is not approaching death.

Death is not an applicable allusion with regard to growing young people.

The determination of death for a person dying of natural causes, or unnatural causes, is made with appeal to science and medicine in a manner that is collectively accepted by society.

But that is inapplicable to the newly conceived human being.

Has the human who has severely violated the rules of our justice system lost the right to live when he is legally condemned to death?

Never.

But, topically irrelevant.

Stick to the topic, Hobo1: the right to life of the newly conceived, young and growing unique individual human being.

Your digression is sophistry in the making.

Equally intelligent and intellectual people may argue that 1)the rule of God, or 2)the rule of Law, or 3)the rule of a priori philosophy or 4)some other logical argument should be applied.

Maybe they do in your fantasy world, and maybe those in denial of the facts of truth in the matter may lose their way in such a discussion.

But emotionally honest people accept the unconjecturable facts of truth presented by science that a unique individual human being, a person, begins to live at the moment of conception.

And emotionally honest people recognize that this person, by virtue of being a person, a unique individual human being, possesses the right to life.

For all the praise heaped upon supposedly "intelligent and intellectual" people for their thinking ability, it's amazing how they can be so emotionally ignorant.

Too much thinking is an addiction that functions to keep one from feeling.

The result is mental masturbation of the type you have here ejaculated, Hobo1.

 

[Chip]

Different cultures choose different sources as the apex of wisdom.

Irrelevant.

The truth of these matters has long been known.

What's topically relevant is why people continue to deny the existence from conception of a person's life and why they are in denial about that person's right to life.

However, in the United States, our culture is controlled and order is maintained thought a written the rule of law.

Irrelevant.

There are many statutes on the books that are based on error of fact.

Roe v. Wade is one such law.

It's days are logically therefore numbered.

So as long as the US Constitution remains as the supreme law of our land, and the judicial system established by that Constitution continues to function, then both questions about the right to life will remain as currently interpreted.

Irrelevant.

The truth demands our respect, no matter what is written in law.

Remember, slavery was once the law, as it was based on the legal premise that people of color weren't people, and thus could be property.

But that premise was false.

Yet the recognition that that premise was false didn't cause the law based on error to simply disappear. Hard effort was required to remove that egregious law.

Roe v. Wade is based on error of fact and it should not be respected.

It should be overturned.

That day is coming.

Of course people of our nation have the freedom of speech to disagree with both the definition of life

"The definition of life" to which you refer, if that so-called "definition" says that a person does not begin to live at conception, is in error.

Only science can rightly and respectably tell us when a person begins to live.

Science has presented that a person begins to live at the moment of conception.

There is no "freedom to disagree" with that, to so justify murderous abortion, which can ever be respected.

and with the conditions under which that that right is lost.

Irrelevant.

Murder is always wrong, always.

That's not a matter for rational conjecture.

Unless and until the laws of the land are changed, everyone must obey by those laws.

Absolutely false.

As always, people can choose to disobey those laws and suffer the penalties.

Civil disobedience in the 1960s successfully put an end to government supported discrimination against people of color in the South.

Blind and cowardly obedience to laws that support butchery by abortion is simply wrong.

Best is to challenge Roe v Wade with new cases based upon the scientific fact that a person begins to live from the moment of conception.

Indeed, such has been successfully done, which is why there are people presently serving time for murdering a newly conceived person.

Right now in the United States of America,

Irrelevant.

Throughout history egregious violations of human rights have been codified into law.

No matter where in the world that exists, rational and courageous people work to remove those laws.

and in the foreseeable future,

Your myopic view is irrelevant.

Roe v. Wade will soon fall.

Like all past law based on subsequently revealed to be false premise, Roe too will eventually fall.

a fetus or embryo in the mother's womb does not constitute an individual life.

Irrelevant.

A law based on an error of fact, as Roe is so based, does not change that fact to be correct simply because the law exists.

Might does not make rights, and that includes the might of law.

And since that appendage in the mother's womb is not a life,

Erroneous.

You erroneously argue that law determines truth.

That is an obvious erroneous premise.

In this matter, science has, subsequent to Roe v Wade, made it clear that the premise on which Roe was written is false.

It is to science that rational, emotionally honest people appeal in the matter.

Cowards hide behind the skirts of mommy law, hoping that mommy will protect them from the evil of their pro-abortionist moral relativistic utilitarian ways.

Braves fight to overturn laws that are based on false premise.

it cannot possibly possesses any right to life. Q.E.D.

And your sophistry completes with the conclusion it was contrived to "support".

Indeed, your moral relativistic utilitarian pro-abortion position came first.

Then you contrived your long-winded mental masturbation of sophistry to attempt to support it.

How obvious your sophistry is.

Your presentation is far from wisdom.

It is a fool's folly.

 

[Chip]

Murder by neglect is murder none the less.

Erroneous.

Likely, that which you allude, would be judged manslaughter or, most likely, negligent homicide.

For it to be murder, an intent to kill must be present and a direct act to kill executed. Neglect is rarely an intent to kill, and it is not judged a direct act.

For it to be manslaughter, a non-premeditated act leading directly to death must be involved. Neglect does not necessarily lead directly to death, and, it's not considered an "act".

The likely verdict in the cases you would cite would logically be negligent homicide.

Not murder.

But again, the overwhelming vast majority of the cases you cite do not involve true neglect.

They simply involved difficult impoverished times that requires parents to be more focused on earning a living than tending to all the needs of their kids.

Poverty suffered by people, and attempting to cope with it, is simply not a murder weapon.

You would force them to be born and then abandon them.

Erroneous.

I would not "force" anything.

I advocate allowing them to live their life without being murdered.

I advocate penalties for those who so murder.

I advocate better effort made by both men and women to avoid creating conceptions they really don't intend to carry to term.

If it makes you feel better to campaign as you do for only the unborn life while allowing born life to wither away, then good for you.

Erroneous and irrelevant.

I don't "campaign", as you histrionically put it, for people to be born so they can just "wither away".

I advocate not murdering people for any reason no matter what their age.

End of topically relevant sentence.

Your concern about what to do to correct population mismanagement belongs in another thread.

But regardless, murder is never a solution to population mismanagement, period.

That you consider murder to be a solution to population mismanagement is horrific.

I'm not like that.

What you are like is someone who advocates murder to solve problems of population mismanagement.

Yes, that is truly horrific.

Ageism?

Yes, that is the bias you are employing in your specious justification of murder by abortion.

But you only support life before it's born.

Irrelevant and erroneous.

Your statement is irrelevant to the fact that it is simply wrong to murder anyone pre and post natal alike.

Your statement is erroneous in that I do not "only support life before it's born." You like to fantasize into your mind things that were never said or implied, and thus your argument becomes an immediate loser.

If you want to find out the ways in which I support post-natal people, start a thread on the topic.

But your fantasy of post-natal neglect is not a rational justification for murderous abortion.

Isn't that ageism as well?

Topically irrelevant.

Such is not germane to the topic ... and I never presented such bias in my arguments.

I know you like to fantasize that I'm religious when I'm not and that I'm only anti-abortion when in fact I'm pro-life, but your fantasies are erroneous, and, obviously, irrelevant.

And don't misquote me in your frenetic drive to demonize me,

Ha! Me thinks you doth project too much!

I never said that I thought abortion was okay.

You are arguing the pro-abortionist position with pro-abortionist sophistry.

You have made it clear in your arguments that you support murderous abortion.

If you are now saying that you think that abortion is "not" okay, you have a schizoid way of arguing it.

I think it's better than many of the alternatives, that's all.

Translation: "I, Mare, think that it is better to commit murderous abortion than to have that person grow up in poverty and neglect."

Don't for a moment try to say that you think abortion isn't okay.

I find your murder by neglect "to be heinous in its irrationalized butchery",

I find your erroneous transference and projection to be inapplicable to the matter at hand.

and hypocritical as well.

Again, you would be the pot calling the kettle black, except I don't qualify as a kettle.

 

[Hobo1]

How obvious your sophistry is.

Your presentation is far from wisdom.

It is a fool's folly.

Your dogmatic view of this issue has blinded you to all logic. However the definition of when life begins and when life ends is still an open question, whether you look at it from an ethical, legal or scientific point of view.

The only fool's folly on my part is to continue discussing this subject with you.

 

[palerider]

Exactly my point. [/qote]

And your point fails. A definition of blood alcohol does not prove that you have any particular amount of blood alcohol in your system.

Suppose you are arrested and charged with drunken driving. No blood alcohol screen is performed, you are brought before the judge and the prosecutor says:

"Blood alcohol concentration is the concentration of alcohol in a person's blood. BAC is most commonly used as a metric of intoxication for legal or medical purposes. It is usually measured in terms of mass per volume, but can also be measured in terms of mass per mass. Blood alcohol concentration is given in many different units and notations, but they are all relatively synonymous with each other numerically."

What is your response if the judge says "Very good. You are guilty."

If you are reasonably intelligent, you, or your council is going to point out that the prosecutor just read (or fabricated) a definition of blood alcohol. He didn't prove that you had any alcohol concentration in your blood at all. Therefore, he completely failed to prove that the definition he read (or fabricated) proved that you were indeed drunk.

You have provided (or fabricated) a definition of sentience. What you have not done is prove that one who is not sentient is something other than a human being. I, on the other hand, have provided credible materials that state that not only are we human beings from the time we are concieved, human being and person are interchangable terms in the eyes of the law.

If you can prove your case, it is about time for you to provide the proofs. Your opinion simply does not stand against credible materials that say that you are wrong.

You are off-center with that characterization of DNA. DNA is the primary substance that ascertains a species as human, but it is not a trait of humanness. Deoxyribonucleic acid is a chemical, and has a chemical name. That chemical in the right environment has an emergent property. If you don't know what an emergent property is, look it up here as an overview,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
That concept is crucial for the discussion of sentience and humanness.
(The following is an interesting finding, and not a serious argument of anything, so don't get your dander up: The DNA sequences of a male human is closer to the DNA of a male chimpanzee, than it is to a female human. Women love that finding.)

Being a biochemist, I understand perfectly what an emergent property is. I also understand perfectly that if I am given but one strand of DNA, I can determine whether or not the being it came from is a human being or not. You could describe secondary characteristics the being the strand of DNA came from all day, but until you can provide proof, your descriptions are meaningless. The proof that the tisue came from a human being that I could provide would be accepted in practically any court of law in the world.

Again, DNA is the primary characteristic of humanness. Without it, you don't have a human being. With it, descriptions of derivitive characteristics prove nothing about the nature of the creature it came from that wasn't already known.

That is certainly true if there were a measurable concept for "more sentient", which I am not claiming. I am claiming there is a difference between sentience and non-sentience.

And ONCE AGAIN, you are not proving that sentience is what makes a human being, a human being. At this point, it is nothing more than an unsubstantiated, usupported claim on your part. I know that there is a difference between sentience and non sentience. What I don't know is that sentience is what makes a human being, a human being. I can find nothing in the scientific, or legal literature that says that unless one is sentient, one can not be a human being. You are making the claim so prove it.

Suppose you had no neural system, you wouldn't be sentient at all. That is my point that you keep ignoring. You would have a human potential, but I would have the humanness of sentience.

Prove that unborns, prior to the development of a neural system are soomething other than living human beings. You are providing definitions, but failing to prove that the definitions prove your original premise. Prove that sentience is what makes a human being, a human being. Thus far, you have not, and it is my learned opinion that you never will. Considering the amountof research I have done on the subject, if it were possible to prove that unborns are something other than living human beings, I would have found the proof. That being said, it is possible I missed something. Either provide that proof which I missed, or simply admit that you can not prove your initial premise.

Sentience is a fundamental trait of humanness. A priori. DNA has nothing to do with humanness. Only the emergent properties of DNA bring about humanness. Now you prove that it is not a priori.

Again, I see your lips moving, but nothing is coming out. Prove that unborns are not human beings prior to achieving sentience.

None of the references you supplied stated anything about their scientific definition of "human" with respect to the embryo. Your references gave no insight to a clinical definition that is identical to the definition of "person" as implied in legal verbiage used in court documents and the constitution. Why don't you ask the objective scientists that if they substituted the word "sentient human" for the word "human" would they still stand by their statements.

They state explictly that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. Thus far, you have provided exactly nothing that suggests otherwise other than your own uneducated, unspported, unsubstantiated opinion. Sorry, but credible materials trump your opinion. If I were simply arguing and not providing materials to support my position, we would be on even footing. I, however, have provided credible material to support every part of my argument while you have provide nothing to support yours. At this point, I have one based on the perponderance of the evidence.

This is how it is going to go when the supreme court hears the first of several cases that are on their way that address, not a woman's theoretical right, but what is actually being killed when an abortion is performed. The pro choice side will simply be overwhelmed with the factual evidence while having nothing, by way of credible evidence to present in support of its case.

Since you have not provided any evidence that until they achieve sentience unborns are something other than human beings, you have not presented an argument. If you can simply change words without having proven that the change is warranted, then you might as well switch the word "human" with rabbit. Clearly rabbits have no right to live. Try that in a court of law sometime and let me know how it works out for you.

If you are going to introduce the term "sentient human" you are going to have to prove that sentience is what makes a human being a human being. If you asked those scientists to substitute the word mature human for human, they would still say that unborns are human beings. Less mature than mature humans, but human beings none the less. Maturity and development are not what make you a human being. Maturity and development are simply the results of growing older.

Switching definitions in arguments is older than prank telephone calls. "Is your toilet running?" "Yes it is." You better catch it because I need to take a crap."

So why do you keep doing it? When it finally becomes crystal clear to you that you are simply not going to be able to PROVE that sentience is what makes a human being a human being, what will you change the definition to next? Sentience was not part of your original argument. Sentience is just a handfull of bull**** that you picked up and hurled against the wall hoping that some of it would stick. When it is clear that none did, what will you hurl against the wall next?

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

In the above joke, the word "run" is used with two different meanings in two different contexts, if you get this joke, then you get my point.

Thus far, you have no point because you have no proof. You have uneducated, unsupported opinion which carries about as much weight as an empty vaccum.

Do you seriously think that our forefathers had an embryo prior to the gastrulation phase in mind when they wrote that? The American colonists of embryos are needed to fight the British Redcoats!

At the time that our founding documents were written, we had a pretty good understanding of the basics of the biology of human development. There were details to be filled in but we understood the basics. The founders were educated men and were very deliberate in what they said. Knowing that a woman is carrying a human child they chose to say that it is a self evident truth that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Note that they did not say that all men are born equal when the knowledge existed, and had existed for quite a while that would have alowed them to make that distinction.

Face it lagboltz. you are not going to be able to prove your case. You are going to run into a wall of fact that states explicitly that you are wrong every single time.

Again you have not made your case. You switch definitions in going from your point 1 to point 2, and you ludicrously misconstrue the intent of the constitution.

I have proved my case and you have provided nothing with which to refute the evidence I have provided. In the first point of my argument, I prove that unborns are human beings. In the second, I prove that human beings have the right to live. I have not changed definitions, I am simply proving one thing before I move on to the next thing. It is called building a case. Let me see if I can explain it to you in terms you can understand.

If I started off with point two for example and simply stated that human beings have a right to live, then you could rightly come back and point out that I have to first prove that unborns are human beings before my point has any meaning.

My argument goes like this"

1. Prove that unborns are human beings.

2. Provide proof that human beings have a right to live.

Your argument goes like this

1. Assume that sentience is what makes a human being a human being.

2. State that only sentient humans have a right to live.

Your point two is meaningless because you simply assumed, rather than proved point 1.

You cannot prove your opinion. I won't get further into that here.

Which is why I am not presenting my opinion. I am only presenting that which I can prove.

That's a screwball statement. You should have inferred by now that I would not ever wantonly kill a sentient human being.

Of course. But you would wantonly kill unborns based on nothing more than your uneducated assumption that only sentient human beings have a right to live. Why not make some equally unsubstantiated, unsupported assumption about sentient human beings that would justify your killing them?

You switch definitions at the start of your argument. A definition of human in a medical book is much different than a definition of person in a legal book. One legal definition of person that I saw even includes "a corporate entity" as a person.

I guess you have never had to actually prove a thing in your entire life. My job requires proofs all the time. In order to prove a thing, you go through stages. You prove one thing, and then use that proof to validate the next thing. I couldn't apply my statement that human beings have a right to live to unborns until I first prove that unborns are human beings.

You can not apply your claiim that sentient humans have a right to live until you first PROVE that our rights are based on sentience. Thus far, you have not proved it. Maybe the reality of proof is so alien to you that you simply don't grasp it. I am afraid that I can't help you there.

Person: (http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com)
3: one (as a human being or corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties

Are you arguing that unborns are corporations? I was perfectly aware of the defintion having looked it up, but since no one is trying to prove that unborns are corporations, it is irrelavent. I noted that you conveniently left out the primary definition of person. "A HUMAN BEING".

Another discussion of person.
In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statue term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.

Again. Are you arguing that unborns are corporations?

Yes, I know. Black's book may not explicitly show that breadth of meaning, but the other definitions shed light on just what is the legal tone of "person".

Black's Legal Dictionary shows the definition as it applies to the law. The law is what we are arguing here and Blacks proves I am right and you are wrong.

How do you reconcile the medical vs. legal definitions in different contexts? Medical embryo definitions are more at the DNA level of human entity. Legal definitions imply the person in question is born and can independently function. Just one word is needed to characterize the difference between these two definitions? --- Sentience.[/qipte]

One proves the other. The law speaks of persons and the rights and responsibilities of persons. The law says that human being and person are interchangable terms. Human being is not a legal term. Human being is a scientific term and the law relies on science to establish what a human being is. Science says that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. The law says that all human beings are persons, therefore we are persons from the time we are concieved. That is why the supreme court had to flatly deny that unborns were human beings. Clearly, they assumed wrong and they admitted that if it were proven that they were wrong, that roe would collapse. Wake up and smell the coffee. Roe is collapsing and the more science tells us, the more evident it becomes that the court was simply wrong.

I have no recourse except to believe that your thinking is driven by your deep emotional obsession with abortion and your myopia to any argument against yours. You have not proved your case.

Well, you do have another recourse. You could be honest and admit that you simply can't prove any part of your argument and that I have provided credible evidence to support mine and that you admit defeat. Rather, you dishonestly claim that my argument is emotional in nature knowing (presumably) that I am going to ask that you bring any part of my argument forward that seems to be emotional in nature. Surely you know that you won't be able to do that either as I have not made any emotional claims.

Face it, you have lost. That really isn't important though. What is important is what you do with what you have learned. Do you hold to an argument that you know to be false and innaccurate or do you alter your position to reflect the facts? What sort of person you are will determine what you do with what has been presented to you.

 

[palerider]

If one defines humaness as posessing only a certain set of human genes then Downs children would be disqulaified because they have a different set of genes.

Downs, among others are recognized by all geneticists as genetic abborations unique to human beings. I have never heard of any credible scientist suggesting that genetic defects preclude one from being a human being.

One I was talking about parentage I was not limiting it to the method of impregnation. Dolly had genetic material that was donated by sheep so she was a sheep.

Dolly was a clone. She had no parentage. There are presently plants that have animal genetic material donated to them. Again, who, or what donates genetic material is not as important as the DNA structure itself in determining what a creature is.

 

[palerider]

When that nose is located INSIDE your body and its owner is living off of you, then the owner of the house should have control over who lives there.

Human bodies are not property and may not be owned. You do not own your own body but in the eyes of the law are a caretaker. Even if you did own you body and could apply property rights, a quick review of the laws with regard to trespassers would show you that if you kill a trespasser that does not represent an iminent threat to your life, you are guilty of a crime ranging from manslaughter to murder.

If you have a baby living inside of you and off of your body systems, then you too should have the right to control your body and it's contents.

Sorry, that simply is not justification to kill. Refer to conjoined twins to see your argument break down in practice.

 

[palerider]

There are many circumstances where different authorities must make determinations about when something is alive or dead; and when someone has lost his right to live. Is a fetus in the mother's womb alive, is it simply a integral organic part of the mother?

I wholeheartedly invite you to provide any credible scientific materials suggesting that the uborn is not a living human being, or that unborns are a part of their mother's bodies. Both suggestions are nothing more than musings and have no basis whatsoever in fact.

Is a human that can no longer breath or eat still alive, or has he entered the first stage of death? Has the human who has severely violated the rules of our justice system lost the right to live when he is legally condemned to death?

The inherent weakness of your argument is brought into sharp relief by the fact that you are now attempting to equate a perfectly healthy, immature human being to one who is so injured or sick that no reasonable hope of recovery exists. End of life issues are not analogous to beginning of life issues.

Right now in the United States of America, and in the foreseeable future, a fetus or embryo in the mother's womb does not constitute an individual life. And since that appendage in the mother's womb is not a life, it cannot possibly possesses any right to life. Q.E.D.

Actually, it does, whether the court recognizes it or not. A black person constitued a living human being in the 1800's as surely as they constitute a living human being today. The fact that the court failed to recognize it is to our detriment and a mark of shame on our legal system. Abortion represents the same sort of flawed legal resoning.

By the way. Federal law recognizes a child, at any stage of development as a living human being. At present there is a conflict within the law that is going to have to be addressed. A single entity can not be both person and non person, human and non human at the same time. Do feel free to substantiate your claim with a larger amount of credible evidence than has been presented to disprove your claim.

 

[palerider]

Hobo, your post is reeking with wisdom. It is a refreshing overview of the issue at hand. As you say, in the US, written law is the predominant paradigm, and that is why the US has such an large percentage of lawyers compared to other countries. Now there is a movement to overturn Roe vs. Wade through legal arguments and people have a right to do that. The underlying reason that people may want to overrule the law could lie in religious belief, philosophy, etc., but as you say, their beliefs have to manifest through law. My beliefs and motivations are also outside the law but here I must argue the law too. I hope the courts see through any future manipulation of the words and meanings of law and come to the same decision of Roe vs. Wade if it is ever brought to court again.

You have been presented an argument substantiated by hard fact and the law itself. It is a logical fallacy to attempt to discount the argument on the basis that it is religous, or philosophical in nature. It is you who is attempting to support your argument via a faith based argument that you can, in no way, begin to prove.

If that passes for wisdom in your book, I suggest that you refer to a different book as yours is clearly flawed.