A Conception's Right To Life

[top gun]

palerider;82504]

So you are even more intellectually pathetic than I thought. Your only defense of abortion is the fact that a panel of judges decided that it was to be legal. If a similar panel reverses the decision, where does that leave you? You can't make a rational defense in support of abortion now, how do you believe you will make a rational defense when roe is reversed?

Sticks & stones pale... you have nothing.

The fact is I have many times now stated several reasons why abortion should and will always remain legal. The court argument is only my confirmation that my opinion has been upheld.

Translation: topgun can't show any credible information that supports his position and confuses self defense and end of life issues with issues involving perfectly healthy individuals. In fact, here is a link to a discussion in which a case is discussed where the courts forced a hospital to provide life support to a child born with anencephaly who had no possible hope for recovery. The discussion begins on page 13. As to the rest who are justifiably terminated, see the 14th amendment and that little tidbit about due process.

Once again there are conflicting rights here. Furthermore we all know quite well "self defense" is not the only situation were killing perfectly healthy individuals (and these would be fully self sustaining walking talking individuals) is justified under the law.

In addition due process doesn't apply in several situations. For instance collateral damage when there is a pre-strike estimate that a certain number of innocent will be killed. For instance in the case of a family taking someone off of life support although there is always some chance of a miracle or new procedure down the road that might save their life... I could go on.

In addition I'm still waiting for you to tell us were else in law is it mandated that one person be forced to offer up their body as the personal life support for another, as this could come into play in a multitude of ways?

Hint: Does not exist!

Might as well go back out on the sidewalk and scream at some women... you got nothing here.

 

[Chip]

There's an old saying: "It takes an idiot to argue with a genius".

Indeed, only moral relativist utilitarians would ever argue with an ontologically based ethicist, stipulating, as the utilitarians do, that murder is okay.

The idiocy of the moral relativist utilitarian argument, that it is okay to murder newly conceived people because the murderer's "freedom of choice" supercedes the foundational right to life of the person so murdered, is obvious, not only to geniuses, but to everyone else, everyone else, of course, except the moral relativist utilitarian.

Indeed, it doesn't take a genius to grasp that the right to life supercedes the right to freedom of action, as evidenced by the good law throughout human history that has compelled monarchs and dictators to cease and desist their "freedom of choice" previous practice of conveniently murdering anyone whom they found to be a political obstacle.

That utilitarian moral relativists actually argue vice versa, that freedom of action overrides right to life, is truly idiotic.

And, of course, the utilitarian moral relativist arguements are, not surprisingly, laced with error of facts, false accusations against the character of the ontologically based ethicists, and immature childish name-calling ... further substantiating the incredible idiocy of their position.

 

[Lagboltz]

How clever of you. Now you are left unable to prove the same thing that you coudn't prove before.

I dropped sentience out of the argument because you were so worried about it that you were left not defending your own arguments. Now we are focussing on your dogmatic claims.

Of course there is a logical fallacy. You are begging the question, making an assumption that you can not prove. The legal definition of person is "a human being" there are no qualifications listed. "A human being." simple as that.

You are making a logical folly by trying to make a logical argument and assuming words in an English dictionary are constant immutable logical symbols that can be substituted in statements as it can in propositional calculus.

The cemetaries are full of dead human beings. What exactly is your point? Since frozen zygotes can be reanimated while those in cemetaries an not, perhaps the law should examine that conundrum.

My point is that you are making logical folly again by equating humans to dead humans too. Now you are trying to qualify what makes something more undead than something else. That is exactly the same thing you accused me of when I was talking about non-sentience several posts ago. Try to maintain a consistent logical stance and you will see your arguments falling apart.

You offer up your arguments without support and claim that they mean something in the face of credible science and the law that says you are wrong. You simply assume that your arguments carry some authority even though we both know that you can support none of them with credible materials. You make a claim that somehow I am "switching" definitions and can offer no evidence of that either. Your whole position is supported by nothing more than your faith.

You are the one carrying the dogma when you do word play with definitions, and you are dripping with irony again when you talk about a position based on faith.

You are dogmatic specifically because you believe in that which you can not prove. You simply assume that your arguments are authoratative.

Seems like the pot calling the kettle black again.

Again, you think a thing, and argue the thing but can not prove the thing. I don't expect you to buy a single unsupported argument that I make and you expect me to buy your whole argument unsupported.

My argument is that you are just playing with words and you don't understand that. You ignore the fact that words have multiple definitions and you claim that is dogma. That is the whole concept of a dictionary. Ultimately you are claiming that multiple definitions in English dictionaries are just dogma.

I have made no claim that I have not proved. Do feel free to point out any claim that I have made that isn't supported. While you are at it, how about pointing out any claim that you have made that is supported.

I have pointed out your erroneous claims, and the only thing left you have to say is that any cogent argument is dogma. Doesn't sound like your arguments have any legs to stand on. You are caught in a cloudburst of asinine logic by claiming that "some" dead humans are protected by the constitution. That is pure dogma if I have ever heard it.

 

[Lagboltz]

"Pale" is apt, a bloodless, cold, vapid, creature living in the darkness under a bridge or rock striking out venomously at those who pass by. Shoot, Pale, you missed your window of opportunity, you should have been born in the 14th century and then you could have warmed yourself by the fires of women that you were burning at the stake.

My gosh. You are truely a poet. That brings up images that I thought, but would not have been able to express so well.

 

[palerider]

Once again there are conflicting rights here. Furthermore we all know quite well "self defense" is not the only situation were killing perfectly healthy individuals (and these would be fully self sustaining walking talking individuals) is justified under the law.

We do know that self defense is the nly situation where one individual can kill another. All others involve due process and judicial review.

And anytime a conflict of rights exists, the more fundamental right takes precedence.

In addition due process doesn't apply in several situations. For instance collateral damage when there is a pre-strike estimate that a certain number of innocent will be killed. For instance in the case of a family taking someone off of life support although there is always some chance of a miracle or new procedure down the road that might save their life... I could go on.

If you want to talk about war, start a thread. War is not a matter between individuals.

In addition I'm still waiting for you to tell us were else in law is it mandated that one person be forced to offer up their body as the personal life support for another, as this could come into play in a multitude of ways?

I have already done it. Conjoined twins are a perfect example. If they share a vital organ, they may not be separated unless the shared organ is failing and will result in the deaths of both. The separation may be performed in self defense of the one who is sharing the organ.

Hint: Does not exist!

Sorry, but it does. See the US Code with regard to murder. Now feel free to show me legal precedent, or legislated law that makes an exception in the case of conjoined twins.

Might as well go back out on the sidewalk and scream at some women... you got nothing here.

Nothing but your number. To date, you have not won a single point against me and have utterly failed to present a rational argument in defense of your position.

 

[palerider]

I dropped sentience out of the argument because you were so worried about it that you were left not defending your own arguments. Now we are focussing on your dogmatic claims.

I have made no dogmatic claims. I have supported my argument with credible materials. When might we be seeing some credible material in support of your arguments?

You are making a logical folly by trying to make a logical argument and assuming words in an English dictionary are constant immutable logical symbols that can be substituted in statements as it can in propositional calculus.

Nothing huh? Fighting with the dictionary now? Good luck with that.

My point is that you are making logical folly again by equating humans to dead humans too. Now you are trying to qualify what makes something more undead than something else. That is exactly the same thing you accused me of when I was talking about non-sentience several posts ago. Try to maintain a consistent logical stance and you will see your arguments falling apart.

Are you trying to equate frozen embryos to unborns who are alive and growiing?

You are the one carrying the dogma when you do word play with definitions, and you are dripping with irony again when you talk about a position based on faith.

Sorry, I have asked for you to bring forward an example of me playing with definitions and none has been forthcoming. One must logically assume that you just made it up.

Seems like the pot calling the kettle black again.

I assume nothing. I don't make arguments that I can't support with credible materials while you apparently make no arguments that you can support.

My argument is that you are just playing with words and you don't understand that. You ignore the fact that words have multiple definitions and you claim that is dogma. That is the whole concept of a dictionary. Ultimately you are claiming that multiple definitions in English dictionaries are just dogma.

Still fighting with the dictionary huh? How is that working out for you?

I have pointed out your erroneous claims, and the only thing left you have to say is that any cogent argument is dogma. Doesn't sound like your arguments have any legs to stand on. You are caught in a cloudburst of asinine logic by claiming that "some" dead humans are protected by the constitution. That is pure dogma if I have ever heard it.

Sorry, but you haven't. You have fabricated errors which proved to be figments of your imagination. It is clear that you can't defend your own argument so you are now fabricating as hard as you can in an effort to discredit mine. It won't work. In order to discredit my argument, you are going to have to provide some credible materials that challenge the materials that I have provided and we both know that you can't do it.

Let me know when you can support your argument with something other than your uneducated, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated opinion. Till then, simply admit that your position is the result of your own emotional handwringing.

 

[palerider]

My gosh. You are truely a poet. That brings up images that I thought, but would not have been able to express so well.

This is were mare goes when she finds herself painted into a corner of her own making. Here is another example:

Are you really a sick and twisted, miserable soul living in a damp, dank basement with rats scuttling around, vampiring your internet wirelessly off the people in the nice apartments upstairs, typing away in a frenzy of rage and impotence because of your low-station in life?

Of course her lashing out is really not that much different than you attempting to attack my argument when it became clear that you were unable to support your own. Both are mewling attempts to divert attention from the fact that you can not offer up a rational justification for your position.

 

[top gun]

palerider;82629]We do know that self defense is the nly situation where one individual can kill another. All others involve due process and judicial review.

Really? What judicial review to pre-strike determined innocent civilians woman & children get as collareral damage. That would be none. They have no day in court. They're just dead. See you're lost...

And anytime a conflict of rights exists, the more fundamental right takes precedence.

The courts have looked all over this. Roe has been in place for 36 long years with both Democrats and Republicans in power. You can personally choose not to accept the findings of the high court but the reasons I've stated are upheld just the same.

If you want to talk about war, start a thread. War is not a matter between individuals.

Killing the innocent is killing the innocent. Quit being a coward the second your argument blows up in your face. That's why you've lost years ago.

I have already done it. Conjoined twins are a perfect example. If they share a vital organ, they may not be separated unless the shared organ is failing and will result in the deaths of both. The separation may be performed in self defense of the one who is sharing the organ.

Completely different than abortion though.

First: The most obvious difference is the twins are sharing THEIR OWN ORGAN... not someone else's. That organ is equal property to each.

What you're wanting to enforce is for an independent self sufficient woman to be forced under law to donate her own body against her will so something or someone else can use it as life support.

Completely different.

Nothing but your number. To date, you have not won a single point against me and have utterly failed to present a rational argument in defense of your position.

I've obviously beaten you so senseless you just keep muttering... the United States Supreme Court is wrong... the United States Supreme Court is wrong.

Well live in fantasy land as long as you want... ain't never going to change a thing because the vast majority in this country and the high court think you are kinda a crazy WACKO! with your conception on blah blah blah. Sorry...

Actually I'm glad kinda you stay in here and complain. Every second you are in here is a second some poor woman has one less sign carrying screaming Clinic Creeper to deal with.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

There's an old saying: "It takes an idiot to argue with a genius".

I think it's very unkind and un-Christian of you to pick on Pale like that, he's doing the best he can.

 

[Ejgertz]

I don't mean to sound cold but I think this topic has run it's course. I know it's sad to say but here goes: I don't care either way. There are more pressing issues that face this country.

www.trulotics.com

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't mean to sound cold but I think this topic has run it's course. I know it's sad to say but here goes: I don't care either way. There are more pressing issues that face this country.

No doubt you are correct, but beating dead horses is a tradition here at HOP, it's the only aerobic exercise Pale and Chip get, except for jumping to conclusions and carrying grudges.

 

[top gun]

No doubt you are correct, but beating dead horses is a tradition here at HOP, it's the only aerobic exercise Pale and Chip get, except for jumping to conclusions and carrying grudges.

You know you come up with some very astute observations... and explain them well!

 

[palerider]

Really? What judicial review to pre-strike determined innocent civilians woman & children get as collareral damage. That would be none. They have no day in court. They're just dead. See you're lost

Really. The key word is individuals. Introduction of war and war related issues into a discussion on abortion is a logical fallacy known as a red herring. Sorry, but you lose again. But what else is new? If you had a rational argument in support of your position, you would have made it already.

The courts have looked all over this. Roe has been in place for 36 long years with both Democrats and Republicans in power. You can personally choose not to accept the findings of the high court but the reasons I've stated are upheld just the same.

If you had done your research, you would know that was patently untrue. Of course it is soon to change. For the past 36 years, the argument has revolved around a woman's theoretical right to terminate a potential human being. No court has stated that a woman has the right to kill another human being. Cases are on the way that will force the court to consider what is being terminated rather than the theoretical right to termiate it and Justice Blackmun already predicted the outcome in the original roe decision. Do you need to see it again?

Killing the innocent is killing the innocent. Quit being a coward the second your argument blows up in your face. That's why you've lost years ago.

Sorry, but I won't indulge you in your logical fallacies. Red herrings are not welcome here. If you can't argue your case on the face of the facts, then you can't argue your case.

Completely different than abortion though.

None the less; they do represent legal precedent for allowing one human being to use another's bodily resources. Take a look at roe if you want to see "completely different things" being used to justify their decision. Hell, they reference the Bible for a supreme court decision.

First: The most obvious difference is the twins are sharing THEIR OWN ORGAN... not someone else's. That organ is equal property to each.

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. If a pair of twins are sharing a heart for example, DNA tests would determine that it belongs to the body of one, but not the other. They are separate individuals even though they are connected and sharing resources.

Further, there is ample legal precedent to prove that the shared organ is not the property of each. Numerous separations have been performed in cases where both twins would die because an organ was unable to support both. In all cases, it was clear that the organ in question belonged to one or the other and the separation was done with the aim of saving the twin whose body the organ belonged to.

This, like so much of your argument is simply something that you have made up. You are arguing what you wish, rather than what is.

What you're wanting to enforce is for an independent self sufficient woman to be forced under law to donate her own body against her will so something or someone else can use it as life support.

You are describiing a clash of rights. Whenever a clash of rights exists between two individuals, the rights of the one must give way to the more fundamental right of the other. There is no more fundamental right than the right to live. Face it top gun, when the facts come to bear, your argument fails every time.

I've obviously beaten you so senseless you just keep muttering... the United States Supreme Court is wrong... the United States Supreme Court is wrong.

I have stated my case and proved them wrong. Thus far, you have not gone an inch towards justifying their decision. They made the decision based entirely on an assumption that unborns were not human beings. Science has proven their assmption wrong and in his majority decision, Justice Blackmun acknowledged that should that assumption be proven wrong, that roe would collapse as the child's life would be specifically protected by the 14th amendment without regard to any right that the woman may claim. It is right there in the decision. Perhaps it is time you stopped fantasizing and face the facts.

Well live in fantasy land as long as you want... ain't never going to change a thing because the vast majority in this country and the high court think you are kinda a crazy WACKO! with your conception on blah blah blah. Sorry...

I have proven my case based on the biological facts, the Constitution, the law, and legal precedent. Thus far you have done no more than parrot "its legal, its legal'.

Actually I'm glad kinda you stay in here and complain. Every second you are in here is a second some poor woman has one less sign carrying screaming Clinic Creeper to deal with.

Is that really the best you can do? You sound like mare fabricating fantasies to console herself of the fact that she has no rational argument. She likes to pretend that every argument she posts doesn't fall before the facts too.

 

[palerider]

I don't mean to sound cold but I think this topic has run it's course. I know it's sad to say but here goes: I don't care either way. There are more pressing issues that face this country.

www.trulotics.com

What issue exactly is more pressing than 40 milion dead and counting in the past 36 years? I would be interested to know.

 

[palerider]

You know you come up with some very astute observations... and explain them well!

And yet, she, like you, can't come up with a rational argument in support of her positon. You guys just stand around and pat each other on the back till the cows come home and roe is struck down. Your outrage will be all the sweeter because you simply would not see it coming.