A Conception's Right To Life

[Dr.Who]

"Only science has the authority to answer the scientific question of, in this relevant case, whether a person is alive at conception.
And science has answered that air-tightly with a resounding YES!
Your belittlement by association sophistry has been defeated, Hobo1." ~Chip​

From your knowledge of science, do you believe that a virus is alive?

Actually a tough question (kudos). But it probably is.

If it were alive and also had rights if it were alive I would err on the side of protecting the rights it would have rather than diminishing them. Moot since even if it is alive it does not have rights. (If it is not alive then it has no rights.)

The rights of said virus would emmanate from either one source or the other:

If rights come from God then God commanded man to cultivate and take care of the earth which is His property. Clearly in being a steward men would at times need to weed the garden or dispense justice to murderers which might include the death penalty. The earth belongs to god but man is responsible to make the best decisions he can. If those decisions include killing viruses in accordance with other godly principles then so be it.

If rights are made by men then the fact that men did not give rights to viruses would mean that they don't have any.

Meanwhile, if God gives rights then those who are created in the image of God (who is a spirit) have rights and unborn children do at the point that they are ensouled (or have a spirit). This is where I depart from the rest of the pro-lifers. Science may indicate that individuality starts at conception but the bible is not that clear and leaves room for a possibly later, though still early, and unspecified date. The best reason for moving that date as early as conception would be so as to err on the side of caution.

Whereas if men give rights then we should at least be consistent about how we do it and not be hypocrites. The rights should begin at the point where our best science indicates that the unborn human is a unique individual.

 

[Lagboltz]

This dialog is getting too long and filled with digressions and misunderstandings. You are reading a lot into my posts and inferring things that are not what my points are. I will try to clarify that without bogging this discussion down. I will skip points that are not relevant.

Again, DNA is the primary characteristic of humanness.

Again. DNA is an organic chemical. Not a characteristic. I know that is crucial to your argument, but there is no possible way you can justify that it is a "characteristic". Deoxyribonucleic acid is a template for characteristics, but it is not the characteristics themselves.

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.

If a zygote holds DNA, that is a template for a human, yes it is a human zygote. I never said it wasn't.

So why do you keep doing it? [Switching definitions]

You are avoiding the point. One of my main thrusts is to show your arguments are based on fallacies by your switching definitions.

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.

We don't need to get into that crap. I am a physicist and mathematician. I have had made proofs in many topics that were published in seven books and countless peer-reviewed journals and technical conferences. I suggest we both end posting this kind of crap right now.

Are you arguing that unborns are corporations?...
Again. Are you arguing that unborns are corporations?

You were NOT telling me the WHOLE TRUTH when you said that Black's dictionary referred to the following:

Palerider said in post #185:
In addition, I have referenced you to page 1152 (depending on the edition) to Black's Legal Dictionary. This is THE dictionary that you will find in the Supreme Court chambers. It is used to settle disputes when an argument arises over legal terms. This dictionary defines person as "a human being" No qualifiers such as sentience, blue eyes, 10 fingers, 10 toes, or two ears. Simply, a human being.

I since found out that Black's Law Dictionary, which you continually refer to, defines "person" as:
1. A human being.
2. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being.

Your argument becomes absolutely ludicrous. Bluntly, what your argument boils down to is that Black says a person is
1. DNA of the human species.
2. Corporation, etc.

I am arguing that you are toying in that area of corporations, by trying to relate a biological property of DNA to the legal property of "person". Of course it includes "human" as one part of the definition but the legal definition of person is muddied and tempered by including corporations in the definition.

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.

Mature is the wrong word for my point.

They [medical references] state explictly that we are human beings from the time we are concieved.

Yes, they are initially referring to the DNA of a zygote.

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.
.....
Well, you do have another recourse. You could be honest and admit that you simply can't prove any part of your argument

Your summary does not represent my arguments. This is my argument
1. Show Palerider's arguments are unfounded.
2. Give an explanation of what interpretation might be left.

I will certainly accept that unborns in the second and third trimester are unborn humans. I have never denied that, and that has never been a part of my argument.
The biological definitions of humans that you cited did not qualify how a cellular biologist defines human.
The legal definition #1 of humans by Black's is Person = Human. Did he define human? Without a definition of human, his definition of person is incomplete and ambiguous when it comes to DNA being human.
There are several informal definitions. You have not given evidence that the biological definition is the same as the legal definition.

As I said, I am showing that your arguments are unfounded because you are making a very bad logical fallacy in confusing definitions. "Human" is a common word. The informal term "human" refers to a set of many definitions:
Let H be a definition of human as a set of specific definitions.
H = {h1, h2, h3, ...}
Let B be a specific zygote defined as a human. Does B = h1? Does B=h2?.... Which one?
Let P be a specific person as used in the Constitution.
One of Black's legal definitions: P = H.
Does P = h1? Does P = h2? .... Which one?

Let us say that the biological definitions in the various sites you quoted are hz where hz = "Zygote containing human Deoxyribonucleic acid, a chemical."

Let the definition of person P for purposes of the constitution be denoted as hc.
The fundamental question: does hc = hz?

I claim that you have not made that case that hc = hz. So the rest of your argument becomes meaningless.

How do we disambiguate the two definitions and gain a clue about what definitions are appropriate? Black's dictionary has a second definition that goes in the larger direction of "body of a corporation" - a body of legal papers and humans. It does not include a definition in the smaller direction of the DNA of a zygote. We get a major clue of how a constitutional person is defined by the USSC as far as Roe vs. Wade by using "potentiality of human life " instead of "person".

Before you have another hissy fit, I will state now that I am not proving anything by the previous paragraph, but defining the context of the appropriate definitions so that disambiguation can occur. However, that is exactly the nature of DNA that the supreme court was trying to qualify in the definition of potential human.

Remember I have not proved anything about the definitions. You have not proved anything either. I have made my whole post without using the word "sentience" (except for now) because it always sets your off on distractions, and it is not a part of my argument It is just a looming background because your arguments fail by not defining human throughout your argument in a cogent and consistent manner.

 

[Dr.Who]

Truth, schmuth, your "truth" is totally irrelevant. Women shoud have the choice. When you say that men like Top are controlling women to commit murder, that's a lie. All any of us are saying is that women should have the choice--not be forced either way. You and your Pale friend wish to force women and deny them a choice.

I'm not arguing with any of your "truth", I'm just saying that I disagree with your coercive conclusion.

What your posts say is that women need to be controlled or they will make incorrect choices--that's patriarchal dog-fuzz, and nothing more. Let women choose.

A choice between what and what? Killing a unique unborn human being or not killing a unique unborn human being? NONE of those adjectives is in doubt.

We don't give anyone the choice to kill their neighbor or not. We make that choice for them. And it has nothing to do with being patriarchal. Even when we don't give women the choice to kill their neighbors it is not because of patriarchalism.

now if the women decided that her neighbor was a unique human being but not a person should she get the choice to kill him/her? Of course not. We don't care if she thinks he is a person or not. What matters is if there are objective reasons to think that the person is a person or not. Our best science tells us that the unborn child is a person from conception. Religion tells us that it is a person from very very early on. And legal precedent from way way back simple says that all humans are persons. There really is no leg to stand on the make any claims that the unborn past just a handful of days is anything other than a person.

 

[palerider]

Again. DNA is an organic chemical. Not a characteristic. I know that is crucial to your argument, but there is no possible way you can justify that it is a "characteristic". Deoxyribonucleic acid is a template for characteristics, but it is not the characteristics themselves.[/qote]

I wish that this board had a crayon function so that perhaps I could draw you a picture if you honestly don't grasp what is being said. If you are being deliberately obtuse so that you don't have to face the hard truth that your argument has failed, then you are several orders of magnitude worse than simply ignorant.

Do I really need to specify that the adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine be arranged in a particular set of sequences that make a human being?

Again, DNA is what makes a human being a human being. It is the absolute lowest common denominator in our species. You have it, you are one of us. You don't and you are something else. Any secondary, derivitave characteristic will not be a common denominator as it is not present in us all to equal measure and since none of us is more human than any other of us, it stands to reason that secondary characteristics are not what make us what we are.

You are avoiding the point. One of my main thrusts is to show your arguments are based on fallacies by your switching definitions.

Sorry, but now you are just being dishonest. I never "switched" definitions.

You claim to be a physist so lets use an example that you can relate to. (I am not a physicist so I don't claim to have any real understanding ofthe subject I am speaking to so don't believe that you can prove support your positon on abortion by nitpicking my small understaning of physics) Suppose you are setting out to prove that the wave particle relationship is not in reality a duality, but that the wave and the particle are two separate things. You can't prove that they are two separate things by using only a definition of one. In order to prove that the wave is not a property of the particle, but merely an effect caused by the particle's motion through space you must first prove certain things about particles and then proceed to prove certain things about waves. Proof of one aspect of the wave particle relationship will not suffice for you to prove that particles and waves are not one in the same.

The fact that in going about your proof you must first address particles and then address waves does not mean that you have switched definitions or switched topics. It simply means that you must prove one thing before you can reasonably apply the first proof to the second question.

I had to first prove that unborns are human beings before I could go about proving that the fact that all human beings have rights could reasonably be applied to unborns. If you don't understand that, then I have serious doubts as to whether you are a scientist or a mathematician.

We don't need to get into that crap. I am a physicist and mathematician. I have had made proofs in many topics that were published in seven books and countless peer-reviewed journals and technical conferences. I suggest we both end posting this kind of crap right now.

Then one must question why you fail to understand that I needed to prove that unborns are human beings before I could logically say that the fact that human beings have a right to live applies to unborns as well. It also begs the question as to why you believe that providing a definition of sentience automatically implies that sentience is what makes a human being a human being without first proving that sentience is what makes a human being a human being.

You were NOT telling me the WHOLE TRUTH when you said that Black's dictionary referred to the following:


I since found out that Black's Law Dictionary, which you continually refer to, defines "person" as:
1. A human being.
2. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being.

Your own statement proves you wrong. Certain corporations are recognized as having the rights (in business) and duties of a human being but not actually recognized as human beings. Those same corporations, for example can not be charged for murder because murder is defined as one human being killing another human being with intent. The corporation is not recognized as a human being. That being said, since the topic here is human beings, corporations are irrelavent to the discussion.

I am arguing that you are toying in that area of corporations, by trying to relate a biological property of DNA to the legal property of "person". Of course it includes "human" as one part of the definition but the legal definition of person is muddied and tempered by including corporations in the definition.

Are you really unable to grasp the difference between an actual human being and a type of corporation that may be treated like a human being. Do you really see those two things as one in the same? Really? Is that how you see it?

Mature is the wrong word for my point.

Sentience is the wrong word as well untill such time as you prove that sentience is what makes a human being a human being. It is painfully obvious by now that you are not going to be able to prove your claim and is becoming painful to watch you squirm in that inability.

Yes, they are initially referring to the DNA of a zygote.

I am sure that you wish that were what they were saying, but alas, they aren't. They are stating that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. The authors have a firm enough grasp of the language to say what they mean. If they were only talking about DNA, then they would say so. The one instance where the doctor states that a zygote is a unicellular human being is about as plain spoken as one can get. How is it that you fail to understand what is being said.

Your summary does not represent my arguments. This is my argument
1. Show Palerider's arguments are unfounded.
2. Give an explanation of what interpretation might be left.

At this point, you have proved nothing. Your arguments do not constitute any sort of proof. You have, at this time, not provided a single shred of credible evidence that either supports your claims or refutes my argument. Your lips are moving but nothing is coming out.

I will certainly accept that unborns in the second and third trimester are unborn humans. I have never denied that, and that has never been a part of my argument.

Clear and credible evidence has been provided that states explicitly that unborns at any stage of development, including the single cell zygote stage are human beings and to date, you have provided no credible evidence that challenges that statement. Nor will you be able to.

Upon what basis do you discount hard science that states that we are human beings from conception? Lets see the evidence that led you to believe this? Or feel free to be truthful and simply admit that it is an article of faith for you.

The biological definitions of humans that you cited did not qualify how a cellular biologist defines human.

Cellular biologists are not concerned with the entity and therefore have no interest in defining the entity. Neither do podiatrists, or dermatologists, or opthamoligists.

It is interesting to note that you mention cellular biologists. The field of biologial science that stands to lose a great deal of money shoud the law bring an end to human experimentation on unborns. Even they aren't coming out in force denying that unborns are human beings because no credible scientist would make such a suggestion for fear of being laughed out of his field.

The legal definition #1 of humans by Black's is Person = Human. Did he define human? Without a definition of human, his definition of person is incomplete and ambiguous when it comes to DNA being human.
There are several informal definitions. You have not given evidence that the biological definition is the same as the legal definition. [/qote]

Human is not a legal term. Human is a scientific term and science says that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. And who ever said that DNA is human? You are really decending into a morass of dishonesty here and frankly, if that is the best you can do, I am not even interested in tearing your arguments into easily digestable pieces for you.

As I said, I am showing that your arguments are unfounded because you are making a very bad logical fallacy in confusing definitions. "Human" is a common word. The informal term "human" refers to a set of many definitions:

You are not showing anything except that you can provide nothing credible with which to dispute a single point that I have made. In the absence of any credible materials to refute the materials that have already been provided, once again, your lips are moving, but nothing is coming out.

If you have abandoned all pretense of honest discussion, simply say so now and we can end this here. I have little interest in talking to intellectually dishonest people.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

A choice between what and what? Killing a unique unborn human being or not killing a unique unborn human being? NONE of those adjectives is in doubt.

We don't give anyone the choice to kill their neighbor or not. We make that choice for them. And it has nothing to do with being patriarchal. Even when we don't give women the choice to kill their neighbors it is not because of patriarchalism.

now if the women decided that her neighbor was a unique human being but not a person should she get the choice to kill him/her? Of course not. We don't care if she thinks he is a person or not. What matters is if there are objective reasons to think that the person is a person or not. Our best science tells us that the unborn child is a person from conception. Religion tells us that it is a person from very very early on. And legal precedent from way way back simple says that all humans are persons. There really is no leg to stand on the make any claims that the unborn past just a handful of days is anything other than a person.

I am not arguing any of that. I am saying that it is inside the woman's body and living off of her, as long as that is the case I think that she should have the right to keep it or kill it as she sees fit. When you have a growth inside of you it is your right to kill it or keep it, the fact that it is another life separate of yours is immaterial--if it's inside of you and growing on you, even if it's something you did to make it grow--you should still have the right to keep it or kill it.

That's the choice, I may not like it, but I cannot force anyone to live with something INSIDE their body that they do NOT want to be there. Sorry, but if you smoke cigarettes and get lung cancer you have the choice to kill it or live with it. Of course the analogy fails at some point, but there is no analogy to cover this--it's a uniques situation. I want to play god and tell others how to live too and I can't do it either.

All of this hoopla is based on the judgment that fetal life is innocent, that other human lives can be taken because they are not innocent, and that there is something sacred about human life that does not apply to all other lifeforms. I don't buy it. There is no sanctity of life in our culture, to single out one kind of life and make it sacred, force one group of people to do all the work and suffer the consequences of bearing and caring for that life seems incredibly hypocritical to me. Life is life, it's all sacred or none of it is sacred, it all comes from the same source, we are all made of the same things.

 

[palerider]

Mare, why didn't you just say at the beginning that your position is based entirely on emotional histrionics and in no way logical or rational?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare, why didn't you just say at the beginning that your position is based entirely on emotional histrionics and in no way logical or rational?

Because it isn't. Too simple for you?

 

[Chip]

Truth, schmuth, your "truth" is totally irrelevant.

Erroneous. And your demeaning belittlement is unjustified.

The truth is also not "my" truth ... it is the truth.

And that truth is the scientifically presented fact-based truth that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

That is the presentation in the opening thread, the presentation that substantiates beyond all refutation the newly conceived person's existence and ipso facto right to life, such that to take that life indiscriminately may reflect the sociological behavior of murder.

Thus that truth is foundationally relevant to the topic of this thread.

You simply can't handle the truth.

So you belittle it.

Women shoud have the choice.

Not to murder via abortion they shouldn't, and neither should men. And, if they do so murder, they should be punished severely.

When you say that men like Top are controlling women to commit murder, that's a lie.

Erroneous.

I have already clearly presented how men threaten to abandon women if they don't commit murderous abortion when an unexpected conception, a unique individual human being, is created.

They controllingly use the threat of abandonment to compel the woman to commit murderous abortion.

Women think that they are in charge in the matter.

But they're just codependently reacting to the fear of abandonment.

That's how men control women to commit murderous abortion.

All any of us are saying is that women should have the choice--not be forced either way.

Women always have the choice.

They have the choice to say no to abusive pro-abortionist men who intimidate through control to force the woman to commit murderous abortion.

No one, however, should have the "choice" to commit murderous abortion ... without suffering severe repercussions.

You and your Pale friend wish to force women and deny them a choice.

Erroneous.

I wish to educate women on how pro-abortionist men pull their emotional strings to force them to murder their own offspring.

I wish to advocate severe accomplice penalties for pro-abortionist men who coerce women into committing murderous abortion.

The only choice I wish to deny anyone is the choice to commit murder.

That is the supreme number 1 matter in this topic, and murderous abortion should never be allowed under the specious cowardly guise of "choice".

I'm not arguing with any of your "truth",

Erroneous.

You are hereby saying that you recognize that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

You are hereby saying that person has the foundational right to life.

Yet you have argued against both in this thread.

And you have disrespected both by advocating, as you do, murderous abortion as a population management tool.

I'm just saying that I disagree with your coercive conclusion.

Erroneous.

The only one coercing horrifically is you, which you do by advocating murderous abortion as a method of population management.

That you actually disagree with preventing people from commiting murder is truly horrific.

What your posts say is that women need to be controlled or they will make incorrect choices

Erroneous.

You, in your need to coerce co-victims of women against your "evil men", conjure up such fantasies as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

My posts say that it is wrong to deprive anyone, including newly conceived people, of their foundational right to life.

My posts say that it is wrong to commit murderous abortion.

My posts say that no one, man or woman, has the right to commit murderous abortion.

Your posts say that murder is acceptable, even desirable.

You would do well to read what you are writing, over and over again, to become aware of the NAZI-like horror of what your statements are advocating.

--that's patriarchal dog-fuzz,

Erroneous hyperbole.

You really need to let go of that "evil men" complex, Mare.

It blinds you to the truth, and it blinds you to the horror of your own thereby polarized advocations.

Let women choose.

Not to murder -- never!

Anyone, man or woman, who commits murderous abortion needs to suffer severe penalty of incarceration.

 

[Chip]

Full disclosure? Gimme a f'king break, I've given more full disclosure than any one of you. It's no secret, I post who and what I am with no restrictions. I must be doing a good job of it too, because you seem to have all the information, don't you? And what do you do with that information? You try disingenuously to attack me. Cheap shot, Pop.

Dishonest.

In the paragraph you posted you wrote, in effect, "that's why I never had an abortion".

Here you feign a rant to divert from the facts of the matter that I called you on the fact that you've never, yourself, been able to be pregnant, a fact which you didn't include in that post, the post where you imply that you had been pregnant and chose not to abort.

You are being dishonest, Mare.

So, since you could never be pregnant, I will reiterate the question ...

... Did you as a male ever get someone pregnant and choose not to coerce her into having an abortion?

You've implied as much.

Now substantiate the matter clearly and explicitly.

Or be rightly judged to have presented dishonestly.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Dishonest.

In the paragraph you posted you wrote, in effect, "that's why I never had an abortion".

Here you feign a rant to divert from the facts of the matter that I called you on the fact that you've never, yourself, been able to be pregnant, a fact which you didn't include in that post, the post where you imply that you had been pregnant and chose not to abort.

You are being dishonest, Mare.

So, since you could never be pregnant, I will reiterate the question ...

... Did you as a male ever get someone pregnant and choose not to coerce her into having an abortion?

You've implied as much.

Now substantiate the matter clearly and explicitly.

Or be rightly judged to have presented dishonestly.

Call me what you want, Pop. No, I never implied any such a thing, you're reading in what you want to see (some counselor you would be) and no, I never coerced anyone into or out of an abortion. My point about not having one was that if YOU don't like, then you shouldn't have one--just like I never had one. But maybe you should stop trying to play god and let other people live their lives the way they think they should.

You've been judging me since the Siho thread, Pop, using your pseudo-psychological bullsh1t to attack me. I'm immune to your jibes. You don't know me, and you certainly don't show much evidence of being any kind of a counselor. Maybe Dr. Who had you right: a blowhard.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Erroneous. And your demeaning belittlement is unjustified.The truth is also not "my" truth ... it is the truth.And that truth is the scientifically presented fact-based truth that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.That is the presentation in the opening thread, the presentation that substantiates beyond all refutation the newly conceived person's existence and ipso facto right to life, such that to take that life indiscriminately may reflect the ociological behavior of murder.Thus that truth is foundationally relevant to the topic of this thread.You simply can't handle the truth.So you belittle it.
Not to murder via abortion they shouldn't, and neither should men. And, if they do so murder, they should be punished severely.Erroneous.I have already clearly presented how men threaten to abandon women if they don't commit murderous abortion when an unexpected conception, a unique individual human being, is created.They controllingly use the threat of abandonment to compel the woman to commit murderous abortion.Women think that they are in charge in the matter.But they're just codependently reacting to the fear of abandonment.That's how men control women to commit murderous abortion.Women always have the choice.They have the choice to say no to abusive pro-abortionist men who intimidate through control to force the woman to commit murderous abortion.No one, however, should have the "choice" to commit murderous abortion ... without suffering severe repercussions.Erroneous.I wish to educate women on how pro-abortionist men pull their emotional strings to force them to murder their own offspring.I wish to advocate severe accomplice penalties for pro-abortionist men who coerce women into committing murderous abortion.The only choice I wish to deny anyone is the choice to commit murder.That is the supreme number 1 matter in this topic, and murderous abortion should never be allowed under the specious cowardly guise of "choice".Erroneous.You are hereby saying that you recognize that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.You are hereby saying that person has the foundational right to life.Yet you have argued against both in this thread.And you have disrespected both by advocating, as you do, murderous abortion as a population management tool.Erroneous.The only one coercing horrifically is you, which you do by advocating murderous abortion as a method of population management.That you actually disagree with preventing people from commiting murder is truly horrific.Erroneous.You, in your need to coerce co-victims of women against your "evil men", conjure up such fantasies as a self-fulfilling prophecy.My posts say that it is wrong to deprive anyone, including newly conceived people, of their foundational right to life.My posts say that it is wrong to commit murderous abortion.My posts say that no one, man or woman, has the right to commit murderous abortion.
Your posts say that murder is acceptable, even desirable.You would do well to read what you are writing, over and over again, to become aware of the NAZI-like horror of what your statements are advocating.Erroneous hyperbole.
You really need to let go of that "evil men" complex, Mare.It blinds you to the truth, and it blinds you to the horror of your own thereby polarized advocations.Not to murder -- never!Anyone, man or woman, who commits murderous abortion needs to suffer severe penalty of incarceration.

Wow, Pop, you're really in a swivet about this! You need to get your "evil men" argument under control. You accuse "evil men" of coercing women into abortions, but accuse me of having an "evil men" complex. Hello? Evil men or not?

I'm not arguing your truth, you can save your self a lot of silly typographical hysteria if you simply accept that. What I disagree with are your conclusions.

The Nazi-like horror I'm advocating is freedom for women to control their bodies, freedom from men just like you. Just like you, Pop, people claiming the high moral ground on the basis of their beliefs (non-religious, of course).

Will you advocate the death penalty for a woman who has an abortion? An eye for an eye? It would have to be first degree murder wouldn't it? I mean premeditated murder is murder 1. If I was you, I'd go to a competent therapist and work on your virulent hatred around sexual subjects like abortion and homosexuality (and transsexuality).

 

[palerider]

Because it isn't. Too simple for you?

So which part are you claiming is rational and upon what logic is it founded? It seems that every argument you put forward breaks down in practice.

 

[palerider]

Wow, Pop, you're really in a swivet about this!

Nickames. The last refuge of one who has truely and completely lost an argument. Does calling names make you feel superior or somehow brave?

 

[Chip]

Call me what you want, Pop. No, I never implied any such a thing, you're reading in what you want to see (some counselor you would be) and no, I never coerced anyone into or out of an abortion. My point about not having one was that if YOU don't like, then you shouldn't have one--just like I never had one. But maybe you should stop trying to play god and let other people live their lives the way they think they should.

You've been judging me since the Siho thread, Pop, using your pseudo-psychological bullsh1t to attack me. I'm immune to your jibes. You don't know me, and you certainly don't show much evidence of being any kind of a counselor. Maybe Dr. Who had you right: a blowhard.

As is now obvious by your own admission here, you were posting dishonestly.

You could never get pregnant, yet you made the clear statement that you chose not to have an abortion.

That's dishonest, Mare.

Then, when you get called on your deceit, you post an inaccurate cover-up ... and you trash the person who exposed you.

Typical pro-abortionist.

 

[Dr.Who]

I am not arguing any of that. I am saying that it is inside the woman's body and living off of her, as long as that is the case I think that she should have the right to keep it or kill it as she sees fit. When you have a growth inside of you it is your right to kill it or keep it, the fact that it is another life separate of yours is immaterial--if it's inside of you and growing on you, even if it's something you did to make it grow--you should still have the right to keep it or kill it.

That's the choice, I may not like it, but I cannot force anyone to live with something INSIDE their body that they do NOT want to be there. Sorry, but if you smoke cigarettes and get lung cancer you have the choice to kill it or live with it. Of course the analogy fails at some point, but there is no analogy to cover this--it's a uniques situation. I want to play god and tell others how to live too and I can't do it either.

All of this hoopla is based on the judgment that fetal life is innocent, that other human lives can be taken because they are not innocent, and that there is something sacred about human life that does not apply to all other lifeforms. I don't buy it. There is no sanctity of life in our culture, to single out one kind of life and make it sacred, force one group of people to do all the work and suffer the consequences of bearing and caring for that life seems incredibly hypocritical to me. Life is life, it's all sacred or none of it is sacred, it all comes from the same source, we are all made of the same things.

I understand what you are saying and I think that it is based 100% on your values.

My values are completely opposite.

My values are also more aligned with the rest of the world that values human life above animal life and makes the killing of humans the exception.

As long as you don't value human life then why bother to value human freedom? Let the women be a "slave" to her circumstances. We CAN force her to live with another person inside her. If her life is not sacred then I see no reason to consider her freedom to be sacred.

Or I can consider her life and her freedom to be sacred. I can also consider the life of all of other living humans to be sacred. I will only infringe on the rights of others as an exception to the principle to let them do what they want. The exception is when one person's rights overlap and contradict another's. Her right to freedom is less than the other humans right to life. Sorry but that is the way it is.

By the way, come over here (imagine) for a second. Now stick your first finger out. I am going to grab it with my fist. Now I am going to chop off my fist. Oops too bad about your finger. But it was my fist and your finger was inside of it.