A Conception's Right To Life

[Chip]

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

Derogatory name-calling is truly all you have.

You need to get your "evil men" argument under control.

Your projection is, of course, inapplicable.

But it appears you may have more than derogatory name-calling after all -- you have polly-parrot projection too.

You accuse "evil men" of coercing women into abortions, but accuse me of having an "evil men" complex. Hello? Evil men or not?

Erroneous and divertive.

You know full well you suffer from misanthropy.

Then you post about how the men in this thread advise others not to commit murderous abortion ... and your misanthropy filter calls us "evil" for "controlling women", which is, of course, obviously false.

Yet you do so anyway, and through this forum in nearly every thread -- your point of view is obvious, that "evil men" lurk everywhere, waiting to descend and do harm to women.

And when I point out to you the error of your "perspective", adding that men behave badly when they coerce their partner to commit murderous abortion, you look the other way, as if the obvious fact of that matter were non-existent.

And you look the other way, because of your also unresolved "controlled-by" issues that you transfer and displace onto "men".

Rather than attack the messenger, Mare, you would do well take heed to the message ... and stop embarrassing yourself here at forum.

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

What you are apparently saying here is that you agree with the truth that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception, and is thereby endowed with the foundational right to life.

Either that or you disagree, and simply choose not to argue from a perspective that is an obvious loser.

Too bad you simply can't clearly and explicitly post what you truly mean.

What I disagree with are your conclusions.

You disagree that murdering a newly conceived person is, murder, egregiously wrong, what -- what specifically and in detail do you disagree with, Mare?

I doubt you'll be clear on the matter.

All pro-abortionists when they've realized they've lost, simply then become more and more vague.

The Nazi-like horror I'm advocating is freedom for women to control their bodies,

... To murder people.

Yet you seem to not get how diabologically cold your advocation is.

Are you that emotionally detached, Mare, that you can actually recommend murder on an internet discussion board???

Such a Mengele-like cold recommendation for disposable people is indeed truly NAZI-like.

freedom from men just like you.

There you go again with that "evil men" insinuation, Mare.

You really would do well to do something about your misandry.

Just like you, Pop, people claiming the high moral ground on the basis of their beliefs (non-religious, of course).

Is it "high moral ground", as you demean healthy morality, to argue against murder, Mare?!

When murder is obvious, as murderous abortion is, to argue against it is simply obviously the humane and healthy moral presentation.

That you support murder as a method of population management is holocaustic! ...

... And truly immoral.

Will you advocate the death penalty for a woman who has an abortion?

Absolutely not!

I advocate that anyone, man or woman, who commits murderous abortion, be apprehended and incarcerated. That is appropriate penalty.

Never can one who is not in the immediate act of attempting to take another's very life be killed as prevention with impunity for the killers -- no one has that authority to deprive anyone thusly of that person's right to life.

Refusing to murder a prisoner is the right thing to do in support of the realities of rights.

Once apprehended, once incarcerated, that person is no longer a threat in any way.

Therefore killing that person, premeditatedly via capital punishment, is itself murder, which, of course, is simply wrong.

Murdering a prisoner is in violation of that prisoner's foundational right to life, and, of course, violates the realities of rights.

Once a person has served their time for murderous abortion, then if it was their first murder offense and for the murder of their own offspring, then they should be sterilized as has currently been done to others who have committed murder of their offspring.

People who perform murderous abortions, however, should never be released, as they are mass murderers of other people's offspring, and they will always, thereby, be a likely danger to society, just like any other mass murderer of post-natal people would likely be. I cannot imagine a scenario were, once murderous abortion is illegal, whereby a performer of murderous abortions would ever be granted parole.

An eye for an eye?

Never.

Revenge-killing is the sociological act of murder, and murder is always wrong.

Your Biblical reference is simply an advocation of murder, an advocation by the leaders of that day to create an effective quick-fix deterent to rampant murder in the populace ...

... A deterent that hypocritically violated their own God's commandment of "thou shalt not kill" ...

... Illustrating, once again, that the Bible was written by people, not by "God".

It would have to be first degree murder wouldn't it? I mean premeditated murder is murder 1.

That's right, likely 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).

Irrational, erroneous, unfounded, uncalled for, divertive and, of course, always a bit of a projection with you, Mare.

Look in the mirror, Mare ... and take your own advice about seeking the services of a competent mental health practitioner.

 

[Chip]

Her right to freedom is less than the other humans right to life. Sorry but that is the way it is.

Exactly!

The right to life is foundational, just as presented in Realities of Rights.

Though freedom is one of the three general classes of rights (along with life and security), it is the tertiary right, with life being the primary and overriding right when rights are in conflict.

Generally speaking, though, it is an interesting phenomenon that those who exhibit a utilitarian philosophy in their orientation see it just the other way around, that freedom overrides life, and, as in the case of this thread, utilitarian moral relativists, pro-abortionists, advocate murder of newly conceived people in deference to freedom of sexual behavior without consequence.

Those who are ontologically based in their philosophy of orientation respect the realities of rights and understandably find murder to be abhorrent. They recognize that the right to life is primary and paramount, and that there is no freedom to commit murder, topically, murderous abortion, that can ever be rationalized.

Indeed, if a study were done on all those currently imprisoned for any crime, it would not surprise me if the utilitarian philosophical orientation was present in 99% of the prison populace.

When people have it backwards, when they put freedom ahead of the rights to life and security, they are truly a danger to society. Indeed, most of these people would likely say that there is no such thing as the right to life. That's scarry!

 

[palerider]

Exactly!

The right to life is foundational, just as presented in Realities of Rights.

It always strikes me as sad that certain people can look at our basic rights, life, liberty, and property and have no notion of the importance of the order that they were written in our founding documents.

First, few realize that when a list is written in a legal document, the order the items are written establishes their order of iimportance. Secondly, they fail to see the chrystaline logic in the order they were placed.

Life, liberty and property. Of what value is a right to property if one's right to liberty is not first assured? of what value is a right to liberty or property, if one's right to live is not first assured?

To suggest that any right that an individual may invoke takes precedence over another human being's right to live if that human does not represent an imminent threat to the other's life displays a foundational misunderstanding of the very nature of our legal system.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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.

They work for me, you must be using them wrong.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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

Naw, it's an ongoing thing with someone who pretends to be something his actions show him not to be. There's nothing derogatory about "Pop", it's certainly not in the same class with the things he's called me. Is this the best you have to offer, cheapshots at me with snippets from my posts to others? You seem a pale imitation of your usually vitriolic self today--sleep badly?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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.

I not only wrote the truth, I explained why I wrote what I did. If you can't understand it, then that's your problem not mine. I have been very open about my life, I haven't had to lie about who and what I am in order to give myself more credibility.

People who don't like abortions shouldn't get them. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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.

First bolded statement, I think life is sacred even though I live in a culture that does not. Once in a while one kind of life will be singled out for "sacred" treatement by a segment of the population (try selling dog meat or dog leather golf gloves anywhere in the US) but the rest of the community stills sees that life as profane (thousands of dogs are tortured and killed in experiments). Sorting through the sound and fury to make a reasoned judgment is difficult. I know a lot of women, a few who have had abortions and not one ever did it for "convenience". Nor have I ever met one who did it without agonizing over the decision before and after. What I have learned is that women need to have the right to control their own bodies and reproductive organs without the iron-control of men. I agree that abortion kills a living being, but so does capital punishment, war, and the meat you people eat, the trees cut down, the fish pulled from the sea, and the trophy animals shot for the savage ritual of "sport".

Violently curtailing women's freedom in order to protect one kind of life when men are half the problem and it costs them nothing, while the cost to women is huge, well, that doesn't seem right to me. I am willing to let women make the decisions about their bodies, and let it be between them and God. I have a lot of faith in women, when the world makes it safer and saner to bear the babies, then women will do so, but starting on the backend of the problem with draconian force won't work. I note that on this thread every time I have pointed out the drawbacks to bringing unwanted children into the world that the men have stated that those problems are irrelevant. They may be irrelevant to men, but not to the women who have to live in a culture that stops valuing babies immediately after birth. No one wants to address that.


Second bolded statement, this is a value judgment as to whose right takes precedence. You see it one way, I see it another. When there is a welcoming place for each baby born, then I will agree to ending abortions--shoot, if our culture even made a good faith effort to make a place for all the babies I'd support curtailing abortions, but right now it's not that way.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

... and take your own advice about seeking the services of a competent mental health practitioner.

Your whole post is just an abusive rehash of the same abusive rehash that you've posted 11 times already. As a pop-psychologist you should recognize that you are repeating yourself--a lot.

 

[Lagboltz]

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.

I read Crick and Watson's book decades ago. I know what the double helix is and how A, T, G and C work, so you don't need to draw pictures. Your quote above is quite representative of a large part of this post and your prior posts. Your prose is generally much more creative and verbose in attacking me personally than it is in defending your position.

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

Yes you did.

You claim to be a physist so lets use an example that you can relate to... [wave-particle duality example follows]

You have to trust me that your example is not anything like what a physicist would consider as a way of approaching any problem, but in fairness, I won't argue your example. I think an example in mathematics would be much better suited to the points you are failing to make.

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?

Those rhetorical questions are silly. You are purposely misconstruing my point, which is that the second definition is setting the tone, that both of the definitions are referring to functioning bodies of different types.

Most of the rest of the responses in your post is the usual nonsense where you often seem to purposely misunderstand or misinterpret my points. You then often argue those misconstrued points because it is easier for you to do so, or it furnishes a distraction or some other reason.

You used "sentience" 5 times in your post. My arguments do not hinge on that. Since you were continually confused, I stopped using it. I guess you have to bring back that concept now because you have unsuccessfully defended your position here and are grasping at things that are no longer relevant here.

Let's get back to proof. You use that word abundantly and it is key to your argument.

I laid out a very simple outline using set theory, defining H={h1, h2, h3} and so on. This is how something is to be proved. You completely ignored it in your reply post. I phrased it so that a layman would understand it. Did you understand it? This is the weakest point in your proof. You make a dogmatic statement about human being a scientific term, but you dodged everything else.

Do you believe that the many thousands of zygotes frozen for several years are alive? I seems you would. You have a rather screwy way of defining aliveness.

Deoxyribonucleic acid is a chemical template which under the right conditions self-organizes into a being with emergent properties. If you deny this you are really descending into a morass of dishonesty. (Note: that insult is in your words which quite appropriately fit here. More on that below.) Yes, a zygote is human, but only in the sense that the enclosed DNA encodes a specific member of the human species. You have directly evaded this with unfounded dogma.

The quote below is a compendium of your verbiage in this post that dilutes your respectability in carrying out a relevant argument. I could just as easily used this abusive material at you, but I didn't (with one exception). You are frantically shouting insults. I have avoided that. Why do you do that? It see it generally as a sign of insecurity.

So, my only conclusion again is that, by twisting the meaning of words, you are a fundamentalist Christian frantically trying to barge into a woman's personal life for some ideology that only you can understand. Of course, that is not a relevant argument, but it is the only way that I see how you can be so dogmatic and abusive and lead this thread to such distractions.

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.

Sorry, but now you are just being dishonest.

If you don't understand that, then I have serious doubts as to whether you are a scientist or a mathematician.

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.

Your lips are moving but nothing is coming out.

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.

... your lips are moving, but nothing is coming out. (second time this is used)

I have little interest in talking to intellectually dishonest people.

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.

 

[top gun]

Because it isn't. Too simple for you?

Yep... that's EXACTLY it... it's too simple for them. They're like the KKK sobbing & lamenting the loss of slavery.

If your position is just "all crazy emotional" as the women haters in here would try and have us believe...

then I guess the Highest Court in the Land THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT must be just "all crazy emotional" exactly like you.

I mean your position has only been ratified and supported in precedent for 36 years now! But we all know that some random anti-woman clinic creeper blogger is the real one qualified to make these type decisions certainly not THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT!!!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yep... that's EXACTLY it... it's too simple for them. They're like the KKK sobbing & lamenting the loss of slavery.

If your position is just "all crazy emotional" as the women haters in here would try and have us believe...

then I guess the Highest Court in the Land THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT must be just "all crazy emotional" exactly like you.

I mean your position has only been ratified and supported in precedent for 36 years now! But we all know that some random anti-woman clinic creeper blogger is the real one qualified to make these type decisions certainly not THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT!!!

Yeah, silly me! I've noticed since my transition that men treat me as if I've lost 40 IQ points by changing my gender presentation. I'm sure the Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of black-robed sissies.

 

[palerider]

I read Crick and Watson's book decades ago. I know what the double helix is and how A, T, G and C work, so you don't need to draw pictures. Your quote above is quite representative of a large part of this post and your prior posts. Your prose is generally much more creative and verbose in attacking me personally than it is in defending your position.

You are no longer worthy of my better efforts.

Yes you did.

No I didn't, but if you believe I did, do feel free to explain how you believe I did and what effects you believe it would have on my arguments.

You have to trust me that your example is not anything like what a physicist would consider as a way of approaching any problem, but in fairness, I won't argue your example. I think an example in mathematics would be much better suited to the points you are failing to make.

Actually, I have not failed to make the point. You may or may not have failed to grasp it but that is a personal problem that belongs to you. For your benefit, I will reiterate, and again, do feel free to explain how you believe I have not made my point.

1. Unborns are human beings.

To prove this I provided ample evidence to support the statement. You have been unable to provide any credible materials that even challenge the statement, much less refute it. So it stands that unborns are human beings period. Without the qualifiers of fingers, toes, sentience, neurons, permanant or baby teeth, or blue eyes. Unborns, at any stage of development are human beings.

2. Human beings have a right to live. This is clearly covered in the constitution. The proofs for statement one are necessary so that you will be unable to offer up the challenge that unborns at some stage or another are not human beings. The law recognizes all human beings as persons and all persons (in the US) are protected by the constitution.

Those rhetorical questions are silly. You are purposely misconstruing my point, which is that the second definition is setting the tone, that both of the definitions are referring to functioning bodies of different types.

Actually, they are not. One definiton speaks to actual human beings and the other speaks to a theoretical entity that may be treated as a human being in certain circumstances. Word games are not going to make your case. In any event, the legal dictionary describes what persons are under the law and unborns clearly and undeniably fit into the primary definition.

You used "sentience" 5 times in your post. My arguments do not hinge on that. Since you were continually confused, I stopped using it. I guess you have to bring back that concept now because you have unsuccessfully defended your position here and are grasping at things that are no longer relevant here.

Every argument that I have seen you offer has relied on sentience. Do feel free to bring any that have not relied on sentience forward.

I laid out a very simple outline using set theory, defining H={h1, h2, h3} and so on. This is how something is to be proved. You completely ignored it in your reply post. I phrased it so that a layman would understand it. Did you understand it? This is the weakest point in your proof. You make a dogmatic statement about human being a scientific term, but you dodged everything else.

And your simple outline fell immediately into logical fallacy. You simply assume that H={h1,h2,h3} and so on. At this point, you have not proven that H requires h1, h2, or h anything in order to be human. That is an unproven assumption at this point. If you can provide some credible information that states that h1 or h2 or h3 is required to be a human being and therefore challenges the credible material that I provided stating explicitly that a zygote is a unicellular human being, then we can entertain h1, h2, and h3. Until such time as you provide credible evidence suggesting that h1,2, or 3 are what make a human being a human being, your theory is simply not supported.

I ignored it because till you provide some credible materials stating that unborns at any stage are not living human beings, it has no merit.

Do you believe that the many thousands of zygotes frozen for several years are alive? I seems you would. You have a rather screwy way of defining aliveness.

Frozen zygotes are technically dead but dead in a way that allows for reanimation. There are a couple of examples of embryos being held in suspended animation but that is not the norm. None the less, each and every one of those zygotes is a human being.

Yes, a zygote is human, but only in the sense that the enclosed DNA encodes a specific member of the human species. You have directly evaded this with unfounded dogma.

You keep saying that, without any evidence in the face of credible materials that state explicitly that unborns at any stage of development are human beings. Not simply human, but human beings. At this point, it is your repeated claims that they are human only in the sense that their DNA encodes a specific member of the species that is unfounded dogma. It is nothing more than an article of your faith. You can provide no credible evidence to support the claim but you keep making it anyway even though credible materials say that it is not true.

So, my only conclusion again is that, by twisting the meaning of words, you are a fundamentalist Christian frantically trying to barge into a woman's personal life for some ideology that only you can understand. Of course, that is not a relevant argument, but it is the only way that I see how you can be so dogmatic and abusive and lead this thread to such distractions.

So now we know that not only are you unable to make a rational argument in support of your position, but you are also absolutely terrible at drawing conclusions.

Further, my arguments are based on clear and credible evidence. Some of which I have provided. Dogma more closely describes your arguments which you seemingly have accepted as authoratative based on no actual proofs at all. You can provide no credible support for your argument and yet you keep hurling it at a thoroughly supported argument as if it had any meaning at all.

 

[palerider]

then I guess the Highest Court in the Land THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT must be just "all crazy emotional" exactly like you.

They have quite a history of exactly that.

I mean your position has only been ratified and supported in precedent for 36 years now! But we all know that some random anti-woman clinic creeper blogger is the real one qualified to make these type decisions certainly not THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT!!![/COLOR]

The court has reversed itself over 200 times since its first session. Many of those reversals happened after far more than 36 years proving that not only are they very fallable, but can also be very stubborn in admitting their fallability.

Once more top gun, your arguments are shown to be completely without merit. What else is new?

 

[palerider]

Yeah, silly me! I've noticed since my transition that men treat me as if I've lost 40 IQ points by changing my gender presentation. I'm sure the Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of black-robed sissies.

Clearly, you are as ignorant of the history of the high court as top gun, and it could be that you never had those 40 IQ points in the first place.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Clearly, you are as ignorant of the history of the high court as top gun, and it could be that you never had those 40 IQ points in the first place.

Maybe, Pale, but I don't have a delicate male ego either, so your jibes don't hurt me.

So the Court has reversed itself, okay, maybe they'll reverse themselves where the slavery of black people is concerned too--but they haven't.

Just like the Chippo, you won't address the squalid conditions in which so many unwanted babies spend their short lives. I don't blame you, you've got a good schtick going blaming women and making it all their problem. Does it make you feel all cozy and smug? Here you are smiting the sinners hip and thigh, and it costs you nothing! How convenient is that?