A Conception's Right To Life

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yea that's gonna happen!:... not ever!

The reason abortion is legal is for multiple reasons. First and foremost is we live in a democracy and the majority sees the justification for it... now that's not a Judicial argument that's just the reality of what would have happened if the anti-women Clinic Creepers had prevailed... the Legislative branch would have simply passed a law allowing for it. For they would know they simply could not stay in office without doing so. Women would revolt as in the Civil Rights movement.

So this whole hullabaloo was really just Clinic Creeper saber rattling without any chance of winning from the start.

But on top of that that court is smart enough to realize that you cannot force a woman to carry a child inside herself anyway.

Add to that the whole conception on theory doesn't hold water to most people the way it does religious fanatics and Clinic Creepers.

Except for the above mentioned most people most do not put the rights of full personhood onto something that starts out as only a couple cells, a fertilized egg. They see that even though it has the possible potential to grow to term and be delivered it also could be terribly mentally and/or physically damaged, miscarried or still born.

Add to that there's the right of the woman not to be government forced to incubate against her will... or be a forced life support source for anything or anybody against her will... or not wanting to be pregnant be forced to have something for lack of a better word "parasite" off her against her will... and the health of the woman issues involved... and the various ways men being stronger can force themselves on women causing pregnancy by rape and incest...

you never had a chance... as I clearly and correctly told you 3 long years ago.



I don't have to show that the unborn are not a potential human being. Because it's already understood and a matter of not only law but several other active policies that there are many circumstances in life where because of conflicting interests and realities it is legal and/or justifiable to terminate various types of life.

In this case we are talking about a couple cells (conception) which even the modern safe & effective Birth Control Pill terminates... v. the wishes and rights of a full blow living breathing independently functioning woman.

Women's reproductive rights are not going away. Like it... don't like it... it doesn't really matter.

Interesting discussion, isn't it? One of the issues that has been overlooked is "soul". Now the Pale Num Chip all claim to be non-religiously motivated, but Dr. Who admits to a Christian leaning. No life but human is considered sacred to any of these gentlemen (I'm using the term quite loosely here). They are all eaters of the dead and have no problem decorating themselves with the skins of murdered beings. So they won't address the issue of souls because it would "out" them and undermine their scientific arguments.

When does the soul inhabit the body? From the beginning with only two cells? Is a body without a soul a "human"? The argument is that animals don't have souls so their lives are not sacred. For the majority of Christian history the Church's position was that the soul entered the body at birth, but that doesn't seem right now in light of the fact that the child is viable outside the mother's body some time earlier than that. Can we scientifically prove when the soul inhabits the body? No, I don't think so since science cannot even prove the existence of "souls".

The mechanics of the growth of a fetus are fairly well documented, but when the soul enters the picture is never addressed. Like a car on an assembly line, a fetus lacks a driver until the car is completed enough to drive on it's own power, until then the fetus is a potential person with nobody home. Of course that's just my opinion because I can't prove the existence of "souls" either.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Irrelevant and divertive.

Stay on topic, Mare.

You're welcome, Chip. I don't know, Chippo, but if you call me a liar on this thread, then my proving that you're wrong seems entirely "on topic". Didn't read any of the citations either, did you?

It's humbling to admit, but the Pale Num Chip has made me reconsider one portion of my stance on abortion. Except for Rush Limbaugh, I have always been foursquare against retroactive birth control--now I'm not so sure.

 

[Chip]

You're welcome, Chip. I don't know, Chippo, but if you call me a liar on this thread, then my proving that you're wrong seems entirely "on topic". Didn't read any of the citations either, did you?

Erroneous, irrelevant and divertive, Mare.

Please stay on topic.

You don't want to suffer the same fate that befell Dawkinsrocks.

And if you keep trying to derail this thread by posting false and topically substantiveless ad hominems, I will report you to the moderators.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Erroneous, irrelevant and divertive, Mare.

Please stay on topic.

You don't want to suffer the same fate that befell Dawkinsrocks.

And if you keep trying to derail this thread by posting false and topically substantiveless ad hominems, I will report you to the moderators.

Report if you like, you are the one who called me a liar on this thread and I proved you wrong. Calling people "liar" is not allowed on the site either, especially when the victim presents the proof of their veracity.

I don't know about you, but this looks like it's on topic:
Interesting discussion, isn't it? One of the issues that has been overlooked is "soul". Now the Pale Num Chip all claim to be non-religiously motivated, but Dr. Who admits to a Christian leaning. No life but human is considered sacred to any of these gentlemen (I'm using the term quite loosely here). They are all eaters of the dead and have no problem decorating themselves with the skins of murdered beings. So they won't address the issue of souls because it would "out" them and undermine their scientific arguments.

When does the soul inhabit the body? From the beginning with only two cells? Is a body without a soul a "human"? The argument is that animals don't have souls so their lives are not sacred. For the majority of Christian history the Church's position was that the soul entered the body at birth, but that doesn't seem right now in light of the fact that the child is viable outside the mother's body some time earlier than that. Can we scientifically prove when the soul inhabits the body? No, I don't think so since science cannot even prove the existence of "souls".

The mechanics of the growth of a fetus are fairly well documented, but when the soul enters the picture is never addressed. Like a car on an assembly line, a fetus lacks a driver until the car is completed enough to drive on it's own power, until then the fetus is a potential person with nobody home. Of course that's just my opinion because I can't prove the existence of "souls" either.

 

[Chip]

Interesting discussion, isn't it? One of the issues that has been overlooked is "soul". Now the Pale Num Chip all claim to be non-religiously motivated, but Dr. Who admits to a Christian leaning. No life but human is considered sacred to any of these gentlemen (I'm using the term quite loosely here). They are all eaters of the dead and have no problem decorating themselves with the skins of murdered beings. So they won't address the issue of souls because it would "out" them and undermine their scientific arguments.

When does the soul inhabit the body? From the beginning with only two cells? Is a body without a soul a "human"? The argument is that animals don't have souls so their lives are not sacred. For the majority of Christian history the Church's position was that the soul entered the body at birth, but that doesn't seem right now in light of the fact that the child is viable outside the mother's body some time earlier than that. Can we scientifically prove when the soul inhabits the body? No, I don't think so since science cannot even prove the existence of "souls".

The mechanics of the growth of a fetus are fairly well documented, but when the soul enters the picture is never addressed. Like a car on an assembly line, a fetus lacks a driver until the car is completed enough to drive on it's own power, until then the fetus is a potential person with nobody home. Of course that's just my opinion because I can't prove the existence of "souls" either.

Religion is irrelevant to the topic, in this thread, and anywhere.

As presented in the opening post of this thread, any valid refutation with regard to when an entity begins to live must be scientific.

Only science is the obvious authority on when an entity begins to live. It's about scientific observation and criteria that is objectively applied and universally accepted.

It is not about religious doctrine that is factually unsupportable, often specious in its allusions, varies from religion to religion, is therefore divisive, and obviously doesn't solve anything, but only makes matters worse, as history does attest.

If you have no scientific presentation that directly refutes the opening post, then the matter is done.

I would think you of all people, Mare, would not want religious interference telling you, among other things such has who can get married and who can't, that you would be in danger of Hell fire for advocating murderous abortion. Then again, being the utilitarian moral relativist that you admittedly are, consistency of presentation is not one of your strong suits, and I suppose if you find one religion that says its okay to murder newly conceived people, you'll probably be happy, and, of course, choose that religion's perspective over the one that damns you to Hell fire for committing murderous abortion.

Keep religion out of this topic where it has no rightful business.

 

[Chip]

Report if you like, you are the one who called me a liar on this thread and I proved you wrong. Calling people "liar" is not allowed on the site either, especially when the victim presents the proof of their veracity.

Erroneous.

You are the pot calling the kettle black ... except I don't qualify as a kettle.

You were caught in a lie, and then despicably you have tried to turn it around on me.

One more word about this, or any further attempts to thusly derail this thread, and I will report you to the moderators.

 

[Dr.Who]

Does anyone here really think that our arguing changes anyone's mind? Do you think all the sound and fury here has caused or prevented one abortion?

Um, yea.

I have used things that Pale has said to debate this on another forum successfully. So I can say that at least one of his posts was effective. Granted it is hard to judge success but when someone just slinks away or shuts up or changes the subject or admits they were wrong or just says "yea but..." you can pretty much know you did good at least once.

In general I think that minds are won in the free marketplace of ideas. Good ideas, clearly stated, with a good attitude will overall win over more people than bad arguments, poorly said, with a bad attitude. We could compare various permutations of those factors.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Religion is irrelevant to the topic, in this thread, and anywhere.

As presented in the opening post of this thread, any valid refutation with regard to when an entity begins to live must be scientific.

Only science is the obvious authority on when an entity begins to live. It's about scientific observation and criteria that is objectively applied and universally accepted.

It is not about religious doctrine that is factually unsupportable, often specious in its allusions, varies from religion to religion, is therefore divisive, and obviously doesn't solve anything, but only makes matters worse, as history does attest.

If you have no scientific presentation that directly refutes the opening post, then the matter is done.

I would think you of all people, Mare, would not want religious interference telling you, among other things such has who can get married and who can't, that you would be in danger of Hell fire for advocating murderous abortion. Then again, being the utilitarian moral relativist that you admittedly are, consistency of presentation is not one of your strong suits, and I suppose if you find one religion that says its okay to murder newly conceived people, you'll probably be happy, and, of course, choose that religion's perspective over the one that damns you to Hell fire for committing murderous abortion.

Keep religion out of this topic where it has no rightful business.

There seems to be a lot of religious zeal in your post--I thought you said you were non-religious?

Religion undergirds all morality in our lives, Pale has been proving God's existence on another thread for several hundred posts.

The right to life is a religious-based right, that is only extended to humans--the only creatures with a soul. Science does not confer rights, only morality can do that. So the discussion of a soul and when that soul enters the developing human is integral to the discussion.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Erroneous.

You are the pot calling the kettle black ... except I don't qualify as a kettle.

You were caught in a lie, and then despicably you have tried to turn it around on me.

One more word about this, or any further attempts to thusly derail this thread, and I will report you to the moderators.

I'm encouraging you to report. Do it! You can't change your posts and neither can I, so the mods will see what each of us wrote--I'm good with that.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Um, yea.

I have used things that Pale has said to debate this on another forum successfully. So I can say that at least one of his posts was effective. Granted it is hard to judge success but when someone just slinks away or shuts up or changes the subject or admits they were wrong or just says "yea but..." you can pretty much know you did good at least once.

In general I think that minds are won in the free marketplace of ideas. Good ideas, clearly stated, with a good attitude will overall win over more people than bad arguments, poorly said, with a bad attitude. We could compare various permutations of those factors.

Okay, I suppose you are correct in that.

 

[Lagboltz]

You are no longer worthy of my better efforts.

Well, that statement is dripping with irony anyway.

Every argument that I have seen you offer has relied on sentience.

I dropped that word long ago. I have more recently used non-sentience, but not even that word in my previous post.

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.

There is no logical fallacy. In defining H, logic isn't even used. I am making a formal description of the properties of a "definition". Dictionaries are replete with multiple definitions of words, for example Black gives two definitions of "person". So how do you consider a definition of a word with no surrounding context? You must display the full set of sub-definitions. That is what a dictionary does. In more formal terms, H={h1,h2,h3,...}. That is the notation used in expressing a set of things. And the set of definitions is the starting basis of any logical argument critically involving a word in a language.

How do you disambiguate a word used in some specific context? You choose one sub-definition in that set, which is closest to the meaning the author of a sentence or paragraph intended.

There are four definitions of human in my abridged dictionary. They represent h1-h4, for example. An unabridged dictionary most likely has many more. So the USSC definition of "person" as used in the constitution is not defined unambiguously. Black has two definitions of person, P = {p1,p2}. However, the context of the constitution might direct one to use the definition "human" rather than "corporation". But what do they mean by human? Which definition do they use. That comes from context too. Biological definitions of a zygote use the word "human". What do they mean by "human"? Well, the context is a cell that contains a chemical Deoxyribonucleic acid, which is a template for a Homo Sapiens.

You did not prove that the disambiguation of the word "human" in the two contexts of your "proof" are one and the same sub-definition of "human". You have not proved your point.

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.

I presume you think that what makes a dead zygote human is the encapsulated DNA since dead means not alive. If you say a dead zygote is a "human being", then in essence you are also saying that the definition of person according to Black leads to the conclusion that the constitution protects dead humans beings. You have entered a quagmire of logical inconsistency.

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.

I am not making that claim. I am saying that the references of the scientists in your first point are the ones making that claim. That is the only definition that makes sense concerning the "humanness" of zygotes, especially dead zygotes. You have made the same claim when you insist that DNA is the primary characteristic of a human. (I have stated that DNA is a chemical template, not a characteristic of humanness.)

Dogma more closely describes your arguments which you seemingly have accepted as authoratative based on no actual proofs at all.

I can't see how you think that I am dogmatic when I am codifying or clarifying the concept of multiplicities in "definitions". You seem to be losing sight of the problems of multiple meanings and disambiguation of meanings in contexts, and you are being dogmatic simply stating that the two meanings are the same without proof or technical justification.

Finally, in this particular post, I am not making any "dogmatic" independent proofs. Please understand that I am trying to get away from the circularity of our previous dialogs where I see you continually digressing from the points I am trying to make. The focus should no longer be on (non)sentience, which I think is crucially important but you don't. Please don't think I am trying to make an alternate argument that I think the government should support. In this post, I am simply challenging your claim that you proved anything. In fact, I now think that your argument is further regressing into a logical quagmire.

 

[Chip]

There seems to be a lot of religious zeal in your post--I thought you said you were non-religious?

As usual, erroneous.

Even if you were accurate in your identification of zeal, you error in imagining that all zeal is religious.

One would think you'd tire of being wrong so very many times, Mare.

Religion undergirds all morality in our lives, Pale has been proving God's existence on another thread for several hundred posts.

Topically irrelevant, and thus topically inapplicable.

The right to life is a religious-based right,

Absolutely false.

All rights are ontological in orientation from a pure humanity perspective.

Any reference to God at any time with regard to any right is incidental and does not constitute an appeal to religion.

Remember, to be a religion, the philosophy must contain both a tenet of "souls" and "before/after life". If either of those two tenets are missing, the philosophy is not a religion. In addition, the presence of "God" in the philosophy does not thereby make a philosophy a religion. This was decided back in the late 1970s by a commissioned council consisting of representatives from of all the world's religions that met to settle the definition once and for all.

You cannot make up stories of sophistry off the top of your head, Mare, like your sophistry premise that the right to life is a "religious" right, and then trash it in conclusion with appeal to rejection on the grounds that the religious are supposedly trying to force their ways upon you.

You really would do well to stop making up false witness and instead honor the truth.

that is only extended to humans--the only creatures with a soul.

Erroneous and irrelevant.

Whether or not human beings have a soul is immaterial.

Rights exist for the atheist and theist alike, for everyone.

Whether or not animals have a soul is immaterial to the existence of human rights.

The right to life is not religion based.

Not even a good try, Mare.

Science does not confer rights,

Inexact, and thus immaterial.

Science has determined that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception, a rationally unconjecturable fact that reveals the truth about the personhood of the newly conceived.

That's all that science has done or needs to do.

The three general classes of rights are acknowledged by humanity to belong to a person from the moment of that person's beginning.

Science didn't confer those rights.

People simply acknowledged their existence for every person.

only morality can do that.

Erroneous.

Morality does not confer rights.

There is no morality debate about which people get which rights.

Rights simply are, they are recognized to exist, they are not conferred by people to others, they are acknowledged, respected, abridged, revoked or violated, but we the people do not confer rights via morality.

So the discussion of a soul and when that soul enters the developing human is integral to the discussion.

Erroneous.

Your premises are false and so is your conclusion.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

As usual, erroneous. Even if you were accurate in your identification of zeal, you error in imagining that all zeal is religious.

I never said all zeal was religious, you said that.
"in danger of Hell fire for advocating murderous abortion... that damns you to Hell fire for committing murderous abortion."
I don't know, Chippo, seems pretty religiously zealous to me (please note that you have to repeat it twice in the same paragraph--now that's zeal), Hellfire is not a scientific term.

All rights are ontological in orientation from a pure humanity perspective.

So are you now arguing from a secular humanistic perspective?

Any reference to God at any time with regard to any right is incidental and does not constitute an appeal to religion.

References to God are not necessarily religious? Oh yeah, that's got to be one of the better contradictions you've ever posted. Good one, Chippo.

Remember, to be a religion, the philosophy must contain both a tenet of "souls" and "before/after life". If either of those two tenets are missing, the philosophy is not a religion. In addition, the presence of "God" in the philosophy does not thereby make a philosophy a religion.

And who says that the discussion of souls in relationship to abortion rules out an inclusion of before/after life? I didn't rule it out, did you? Why? Is this part of your new secular humanist perspective?

This was decided back in the late 1970s by a commissioned council consisting of representatives from of all the world's religions that met to settle the definition once and for all.

Got a link, or did you make this up? No group can make decisions "once and for all" when it comes to religion, because what happens when we have new revelations like the Mormons got?

You cannot make up stories of sophistry off the top of your head, Mare, like your sophistry premise that the right to life is a "religious" right, and then trash it in conclusion with appeal to rejection on the grounds that the religious are supposedly trying to force their ways upon you.

I didn't make that argument. Are you writing my arguments for me now? You remind me of the two-headed man who debated free-silver and refuted himself.

You really would do well to stop making up false witness and instead honor the truth.

More religious terms, Chippo, and this doesn't jibe well with your new secular humanist image.

Whether or not human beings have a soul is immaterial.

Whoa, a whole bunch of religious people will take issue with that one.

Rights exist for the atheist and theist alike, for everyone.

We're not discussing atheist or theist, we're discussing human or animal vis a vis the incorporation of a soul.

Whether or not animals have a soul is immaterial to the existence of human rights.

Not if those rights are given on the basis of being sacred because of a God-given soul.

The right to life is not religion based.

Ultimately, I think it is. Science certainly doesn't grant rights and civilization is based on some sort of morality--if not religious, then where do your morals come from?

Science has determined that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception, a rationally unconjecturable fact that reveals the truth about the personhood of the newly conceived.

That's all that science has done or needs to do.

The three general classes of rights are acknowledged by humanity to belong to a person from the moment of that person's beginning.

Science didn't confer those rights.

People simply acknowledged their existence for every person.

Exactly, and why do people acknowledge their existence for every person? Most people will tell you that it arises from a morality based in religious belief. Where do yours come from?

Morality does not confer rights. There is no morality debate about which people get which rights.

No? What about the people at GITMO, they've not been given the same rights you have, nor have gay and trans people. All over the world people debate who gets which rights and who doesn't deserve them. Pay attention, these are serious debates and they are important, your rights could be lost too if George Bush decides that YOU are a terrorist.

Rights simply are, they are recognized to exist, they are not conferred by people to others, they are acknowledged, respected, abridged, revoked or violated, but we the people do not confer rights via morality.

Where have you been for the last 10,000 years, enormous battles have been fought over who gets what rights and there is no consensus yet that is universally applied. And it's all based on somebody's morality--you for instance have objected to gay people on moral grounds.

Your premises are false and so is your conclusion.

Prove it, so far all you've done is bleat like a sheep. Why not ask Dr. Who if the existence of a soul is relevant.

 

[top gun]

Interesting discussion, isn't it? One of the issues that has been overlooked is "soul". Now the Pale Num Chip all claim to be non-religiously motivated, but Dr. Who admits to a Christian leaning. No life but human is considered sacred to any of these gentlemen (I'm using the term quite loosely here). They are all eaters of the dead and have no problem decorating themselves with the skins of murdered beings. So they won't address the issue of souls because it would "out" them and undermine their scientific arguments.

When does the soul inhabit the body? From the beginning with only two cells? Is a body without a soul a "human"? The argument is that animals don't have souls so their lives are not sacred. For the majority of Christian history the Church's position was that the soul entered the body at birth, but that doesn't seem right now in light of the fact that the child is viable outside the mother's body some time earlier than that. Can we scientifically prove when the soul inhabits the body? No, I don't think so since science cannot even prove the existence of "souls".

The mechanics of the growth of a fetus are fairly well documented, but when the soul enters the picture is never addressed. Like a car on an assembly line, a fetus lacks a driver until the car is completed enough to drive on it's own power, until then the fetus is a potential person with nobody home. Of course that's just my opinion because I can't prove the existence of "souls" either.

You raise another interesting point Mare. There are so many variables and variations of interpretation, you bring up a soul for instance... that it really is a personal judgment call.

As such it's "the woman in the actual situation and with the burden" who has been seen as having the right to be able to exercise her choice in this very personal matter.

And as a sidebar looking at some of these replies... seems Chip is getting a little chippy. Even though he'd be the first to insult he's now threatening to "report" people for not being on subject in a way that suits him?

 

[Chip]

[Many things in her previous post taken out of context, apparently purposely misconstrued, obviously in factual error, and in violation of common sense, much of it simply fabricated twists designed to support an ad hominem.]

I don't know if you purposely try to mislead or if you are seriously confused, Mare.

But I don't have the time or inclination to continue correcting your errors or responding to your ad hominem attacks.

The personhood of the newly conceived has been presented without refutation.

The right to life which is acknowledged to exist for all people, as stated in famous separation-of-church-and-state secular government documents, some of which I've already quoted, is a given, not a matter of rational conjecture, especially in this thread.

If you have a problem with the reality of the right to life, then deal with it in the Realities of Rights thread.

The matter here has been settled.

I won't waste any more time on your oppositional defiant disordered silliness.