A Conception's Right To Life

[Dawkinsrocks]

I think you are overchickening it somewhat

 

[Lagboltz]

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?

When you are ignoring the basics of logic you are dripping wet with dogma.

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

What is amazing is that your logic is full of the faults you are trying to accuse me of. Sorry, it just doesn't work.

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

No. You are the one doing that. That is what makes your arguments so foolish. You called dead zygotes human. Then you quote the constitution with person = human, and then you come up with the foolish notion that the constitution protects dead humans. That argument is absolutely foolhardy.

Are you trying to say that frozen embryos are NOT equivalent to unborns alive and growing? They aren't. Period. Yet you call them both human.

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.

I made my argument loud and clear. I can't help it if you are so opinionated that you have blinders on.

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

It's working fine for me. Here is a little experiment for you.
x + 2 = 3
x + 2 = 4
I would say they are two separate statements where x in the first relation has no connection with x in the second relation.
You would say the two statements together prove that
x = "some contradictory dogma that a person driven by obsession would make up"
Do you think that argument is absurd? That is exactly why your arguments are so absurd. You are trying to conjoin two things that have no relation. Once again a single blob of Deoxyribonucleic acid, frozen or not, is a chemical, and yet you call it a human in the same sense of the constitutional meaning.

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.

What is so amazing about that statement is that you are the one doing all the emotional hand-wringing about Roe vs. Wade. You are obsessed and driven by that, that you try miserably to prove something by pseudo-logic and completely fail. And yet you call me dogmatic. What an absolute irony.

 

[palerider]

lagboltz, I will reiterate.

1. Unborns at any stage of development are human beings.

2. Human beings have a right to live.

3. All rights are secondary to the right to live so long as one is not an imminent threat to another's life.

Now by all means, do try to put a dent in any part of that argument. So far, you have not. You have attempted to drag the conversation in 20 dfferent directions, but to date, you have yet to offer up even a shred of evidence that contradicts any part of my argument.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Corpses are human beings

Do they have the right to life?

 

[Lagboltz]

lagboltz, I will reiterate.
1. Unborns at any stage of development are human beings.
2. Human beings have a right to live.
3. All rights are secondary to the right to live so long as one is not an imminent threat to another's life.

Well now, you are backpedaling to your original statements without proof. It seems that you are no longer trying to protect the proof of your own logic which you have not proved anyway. You kept hammering on proof, but now you abandon it just to go back to your original dogmatic stance.

The holes I put in your argument are in your proofs where you switch definitions. You have a different definition of human in your first statement than in the second. You have not refuted that argument except to vaguely claim dogma. Well, Mr. Palerider. Dogma is all you have left.

Now by all means, do try to put a dent in any part of that argument.

I didn't merely put dents in your arguments, I showed you where all your holes are. You put them in. You shot yourself in the foot.

So far, you have not. You have attempted to drag the conversation in 20 dfferent directions, but to date, you have yet to offer up even a shred of evidence that contradicts any part of my argument.

I not only offered the evidence, I showed where you destroyed your own arguments by giving the same definition of human to what you yourself called dead zygotes. Remarkably inanity. Dawkins raised another point. Since you define humans by their DNA, dead humans are just brimming with DNA. Should zygotes in a freezer and dead humans in a cemetery have freedom of speech? the right to bear arms? Since you have so much trouble with multiple definitions, I should tell you that when I say "bear arms" I mean weapons, not appendages that have five fingers.

Finally, you said in your previous post,

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

It looks like you are saying they are not on the same level. You called them both humans in your first statement. Now you are implying that one form of human has some distinction from the other? That was exactly your argument against sentience, and now your own argument comes back to haunt you. Your argument is full of holes, not just dents.

 

[palerider]

Well now, you are backpedaling to your original statements without proof. It seems that you are no longer trying to protect the proof of your own logic which you have not proved anyway. You kept hammering on proof, but now you abandon it just to go back to your original dogmatic stance.

Sorry, no backpedaling. It isn't necessary. I have proved each and every point and to date, you have offered nothing credible that even callenges them, much less refutes them.

The rest of your post is nothing more than so much pap and deserves no answer at all. If you believe you can refute any one of the three points my argument is based on, by all means do it. Rather than create fantasys where you defeat the argument, actually defeat the argument. If you can, now is the time.

By the way, I grow weary of your blatant lie that I have somehow switched definitions. I asked you repeatedly to bring forward an example as evidence and by now, it is obvious that you can't. Either show where I switched definiitions or admit that you are a bald faced liar.

By the way, your claim that you offered any evidence at all is also a bald faced lie. What you have offered is your uneducated, unsupported, uncorroborated opinion. Nothing more.

 

[top gun]

palerider;83119]As I said, I can't explain why it has taken so long for the legal eagles to see the key to overturning roe. It has been there since day one.

Well I'll be glad to tell you some of the reasons.

First it's a very, VERY thin slice of people general population wise that believe that a conception should have full personhood. They just see a clear difference between that super early stage of a couple of cells and even a fetus let alone a child.

So in this way your position defeats itself from a practical standpoint. If abortion would ever be made illegal than to be consistent all birth control methods that contaminate the womb and do not allow a fertilized egg (call it what you want) to implant hence aborting it would have to be made illegal. That's a complete nonstarter here in America my friend.

Then regardless of the reasons used in the Roe decision if the High Court would ever take the matter back up not only are they fighting their own precedent but also many different arguments could come into play from a Constitutional standpoint. What did the framers mean according to what they knew and believed at the time. The rule is what THEY knew and meant THEN not what we may or may not know now.

The Constitution in dealing with other rights clearly says... "All people born" as the standard. Add to that at the time of the Constitution that was the common belief... life started at birth. In fact even today in the Jewish faith their belief is life starts at "crowning" during child birth.

So it's obvious this is not something the High Court wants to or has to reopen.

But this is the real thing I don't understand from rabid Anti-Choice people. Do you not understand that all it would take is a simple majority vote of the people and the Constitution is amended with an absolute right to allow the current conditions under Roe... or even more?

And the votes are without any doubt fully available to do this. So to me it just makes more sense to leave Roe. and not push this to a Constitutional Amendment where it's outcome is seriously already known.

And to answer your South Dakota ruling question. Those rulings are fully capable of being overturned. These are LOWER court rulings. If they aren't overturned at some lower level The Supreme Court can act without even opening Roe back up. They can easily just say it violates their previous ruling.

They have very high latitude (basically unlimited latitude) to do whatever they want.

And like I said all you'd be doing anyway is setting in stone in our Constitution by Legislation the very thing you dislike.

You're endeavoring into a big waste of your time and energy my friend, that could be much better spent helping all the children that are unwanted & born and in desperate need of both financial support and homes.

Might want to consider it...

 

[Lagboltz]

The rest of your post is nothing more than so much pap and deserves no answer at all.

Thank you. I take that as a confession that you can't answer or refute the arguments that I gave.
You called a frozen zygote both dead and human and therefore protected by the constitution. You never refuted that. Never.

If you believe you can refute any one of the three points my argument is based on, by all means do it. Rather than create fantasys where you defeat the argument, actually defeat the argument. If you can, now is the time.

You gave your three "points" again, but your "proof" of those points was inane idiocy full of contradictions.

By the way, I grow weary of your blatant lie that I have somehow switched definitions. I asked you repeatedly to bring forward an example as evidence and by now, it is obvious that you can't. Either show where I switched definiitions or admit that you are a bald faced liar.

By the way, your claim that you offered any evidence at all is also a bald faced lie. What you have offered is your uneducated, unsupported, uncorroborated opinion. Nothing more.

Now your fall-back position simply reverts to pulling back from your "proof" and posting your original dogma again, and calling counter-arguments blatant lies and fantasy, etc. It is very clear to me that you understand that you can't refute my arguments, but I certainly don't expect you to admit it in this forum. It would be to your benefit to just go away to prevent further embarrassing your position.

Now it's your turn to explain how you can call a frozen zygote dead, but human, and expect that Black's dictionary shows that dead human zygotes have the same definition as a person in the constitution. Quit avoiding that question. Now if you want to go ahead and call that a blatant lie, I will go back and re-post your statement, and show just who the blatant liar is.

 

[palerider]

Thank you. I take that as a confession that you can't answer or refute the arguments that I gave.
You called a frozen zygote both dead and human and therefore protected by the constitution. You never refuted that. Never.

It means nothing. It is nothing more than more unsupported claims. I looked closely for some supporting evidence and found none.

You gave your three "points" again, but your "proof" of those points was inane idiocy full of contradictions.

And still I see nothing refuting them. You have yet to prove that unborns are something other than human beings. You clearly can't prove that human beings have no right to live, and you have offered no evidence to support a claim that the right to live is less fundamental than any other right. What exactly do you believe you have proven?

]Now your fall-back position simply reverts to pulling back from your "proof" and posting your original dogma again, and calling counter-arguments blatant lies and fantasy, etc. It is very clear to me that you understand that you can't refute my arguments, but I certainly don't expect you to admit it in this forum. It would be to your benefit to just go away to prevent further embarrassing your position.

I don't know where you get this "fall back position" idea from. My argument has remained the same for a very long time. The proof that I used to support each point still stands unchallenged. Lets go through it again slowly.

1. Unborns are human beings.

The science has been presented and remains unchallenged. Neither you, nor any other pro choicer has provided even a whit of credible evidence that suggests that unborns are something other than human beings.

2. Human beings have a right to live.

Clearly stated in the 5th and 14th amendment. No person (see the legal dictionary) may be denied that right without due process.

3. The right to live takes precedence over all other rights so long as you are not an imminent threat to someone else's life.

Again, you have provided nothing that challenges that.

]Now it's your turn to explain how you can call a frozen zygote dead, but human, and expect that Black's dictionary shows that dead human zygotes have the same definition as a person in the constitution. Quit avoiding that question. Now if you want to go ahead and call that a blatant lie, I will go back and re-post your statement, and show just who the blatant liar is.

We don't become something else when we die. We are what we were except we are dead.

Here, from the U.S. Code Title 10, subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 75, Subchapter I:

"Authority.--Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense, the Armed Forces Medical Examiner may conduct a forensic
pathology investigation to determine the cause or manner of death of a
deceased person if such an investigation is determined to be justified
under circumstances described in subsection (b). "

http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cg...SdocID=62281031510+24+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve

There are numerous similar references throughout both the US Code and federal, state and local laws as well. Feel free to argue, but that argument, like the rest is meaningless. Dead human beings are considered to be dead persons. Further, if you refer to THE legal dictionary for the legal defintion of the word decedent, you will find that it means "the person who has died, sometimes referred to as the "deceased." and in THE legal dictionary, deceased means the person who has died, as used in the handling of his/her estate, probate of will and other proceedings after death, or in reference to the victim of a homicide (as: "The deceased had been shot three times.") In probate law the more genteel word is the "decedent."

Do you believe that you are the first one to attempt to go there? Every part of my argument has been thoroughly researched and I make no claims that I can not support. Now if you believe that because the dead are in fact human beings and are considered by the law to be persons that somehow the due process clauses are rendered null and void in both the 5th and 14th amendments of the Constitution, by all means, lets see some case law to prove it. That, I would be very interested in seeing. The very fact of probate law should have been enough to prevent you from attempting that silly argument. The rights of the dead continue on after they are dead and it stands to reason that the law must recognize them as persons if they can continue to exercise the rights of persons after their deaths.

So I am still waiting for you to offer up credible evidence to disprove any point of my argument.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I want to know why nobody is campaigning for a corpse's right to life.

Corpses are humans and humans have the right to life.

And what about a chicken casserole's right to life?

You don't here much about that?

 

[palerider]

Well I'll be glad to tell you some of the reasons.

This should be good. My bet is that it will be a list of logical fallacies, misrepresentations, lies and abject ignorance.

First it's a very, VERY thin slice of people general population wise that believe that a conception should have full personhood. They just see a clear difference between that super early stage of a couple of cells and even a fetus let alone a child.

Here we go. Logical fallacy right off the bat. What people believe is irrelavent to the facts. If everyone believed that the earth was flat, it wouldn't matter a whit. The earth would go right on being round. The fact that there is a great deal of ignorance out there does not change the fact that unborns are in fact, living human beings.

So in this way your position defeats itself from a practical standpoint. If abortion would ever be made illegal than to be consistent all birth control methods that contaminate the womb and do not allow a fertilized egg (call it what you want) to implant hence aborting it would have to be made illegal. That's a complete nonstarter here in America my friend.

Again, completely irrelavent to the fact that unborns are living human beings.

Then regardless of the reasons used in the Roe decision if the High Court would ever take the matter back up not only are they fighting their own precedent but also many different arguments could come into play from a Constitutional standpoint. What did the framers mean according to what they knew and believed at the time. The rule is what THEY knew and meant THEN not what we may or may not know now.

The court's own precedent has lost, and been overturned over 200 times. Earlier courts are not infallable. As to the Constitution, we have been through this already and it was clear that you neither knew what the Constitution said, nor understood what the words mean. The only reference to born deals with citizenship and one's right to live is not dependent on citizenship.

The Constitution in dealing with other rights clearly says... "All people born" as the standard. Add to that at the time of the Constitution that was the common belief... life started at birth. In fact even today in the Jewish faith their belief is life starts at "crowning" during child birth. /quote]

By the time the founders established this country the essentials of developmental biology were well known. Check your medical history. The founders knew that pregnant women were carrying human beings inside their bodies and there were some among the founders who were scientists. They had sufficient knowledge to have written all men are "born" equal rather than all men are "created" equal if that were their intention.

But this is the real thing I don't understand from rabid Anti-Choice people. Do you not understand that all it would take is a simple majority vote of the people and the Constitution is amended with an absolute right to allow the current conditions under Roe... or even more?

Again, logical fallacy. Appeal to popularity does not alter the facts.

And to answer your South Dakota ruling question. Those rulings are fully capable of being overturned. These are LOWER court rulings. If they aren't overturned at some lower level The Supreme Court can act without even opening Roe back up. They can easily just say it violates their previous ruling.

Of course, but they are not being overturned because there are no grounds. The evidence is such that it is indisputable. Even the 9th circus isn't touching them.

You're endeavoring into a big waste of your time and energy my friend, that could be much better spent helping all the children that are unwanted & born and in desperate need of both financial support and homes.

Yeah, I am sure that slavers said the same after Dred Scott.

 

[palerider]

I want to know why nobody is campaigning for a corpse's right to life.[/qute]

Because there really aren't that many abject idiots out there and those that are, thankfully, aren't taken seriously enough for any of their crackpot ideas to be pursued. But by all means, do give it a shot if you like.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't support a corpse's right to life on the basis that it is a human being.

In the same way that I don't support the right to life of a few brainless cells just because they are human.

To be honest I expected you to be a campaigtner for the rights of the corpse.

You gave a good description of those who would so campaign.

Now which came first, the egg or the egg?

 

[top gun]

palerider;83367]This should be good. My bet is that it will be a list of logical fallacies, misrepresentations, lies and abject ignorance.

Well we'll all try to overlook your over zealous nature my friend.

Here we go. Logical fallacy right off the bat. What people believe is irrelavent to the facts. If everyone believed that the earth was flat, it wouldn't matter a whit. The earth would go right on being round. The fact that there is a great deal of ignorance out there does not change the fact that unborns are in fact, living human beings.

Up to bat... STRIKE ONE...you're out! Wrong... we live in a land of laws and those laws are decided by the people who then live under those laws. There are many things that are objected to by various groups, even largely objected to. But in America the majority gets to choose what laws they want and how they want to enforce those laws. They can do this through elections of their representatives and/or through Constitutional Amendments which of course has been done the past.

I understand this is objectionable to the dictatorship known as the Palerider States of America. However... it is still the case.

And to your earth is flat or round arguement... if the voting majority of Americans wanted it to be legal to... I'll just pick something off the top of my head... say, commit suicide... then suicide could be made 100% legal.

Again, completely irrelavent to the fact that unborns are living human beings.

Again I think you are talking a particular religious philosophy (I know I know you'll play the it's not a religious argument game). However many (vastly most) believe that when it comes to personhood a conception has the "possibility" to become a born person but also know there are multiple very natural things that depending on whether they happen or don't happen to transpire dictate if a "person" will be born. That being the case we get involved into the woman's rights.

But regardless I am taking the REALITY of the situation position. We could call conception a cue ball or Frank Sinatra and it would make no difference. Americans see the need for a medical procedure. Woman cannot be forced to carry a child it is not a naturally possible thing to do... and that is why it will continue to stay in effect.

The court's own precedent has lost, and been overturned over 200 times. Earlier courts are not infallable. As to the Constitution, we have been through this already and it was clear that you neither knew what the Constitution said, nor understood what the words mean. The only reference to born deals with citizenship and one's right to live is not dependent on citizenship.

A) That's exactly my point. Abortion like slavery was once ILLEGAL... it was changed to LEGAL some 36 years ago. Your analogy would be correct if you were talking about the hundreds of years slavery was legal before it was overturned.

B) The High Court at anytime can judge on it's own the mindset of the framers. You have a position. There is another position. It's not uncommon for the court to pick a position to help justify it's ruling. Since none of us were in the minds of the framers and abortion was never ever mentioned then one could look at the mindset in the way other rights were granted and draw comparisons to what they didn't come right out and say in other circumstances.

By the time the founders established this country the essentials of developmental biology were well known. Check your medical history. The founders knew that pregnant women were carrying human beings inside their bodies and there were some among the founders who were scientists. They had sufficient knowledge to have written all men are "born" equal rather than all men are "created" equal if that were their intention.

Thank you... exactly my point. AND YET THEY STILL DID NOT GO BEYOND THE WORD BORN! Could they have not just as easily simply said ALL CONCEIVED? Certainly they could have. But they did not. Hence it's logical to assume that the true expression of their mindset was represented.

Of course, but they are not being overturned because there are no grounds. The evidence is such that it is indisputable. Even the 9th circus isn't touching them.

You can beat this dead horse as long as you want, its not coming back to life.

Here are the realities of our situation. Roe hasn't been overturned in 36 years even with with your current argument well known. Politicians don't really want Roe overturned because the abortion issue is a good wedge issue. They want to be able to bluster about it... and then say... you know my position but it's up to the courts.

And they act in this manor for excellent reason. Unlike you evidently they are smart enough to realize the real choices are... women are protected as Roe stands or there is a Constitutional Amendment protecting women in that way. There simply is no other path that can stand.

Fortunately with the election of President Obama and during his terms I see at least 3 Justices being replaced at least one a current Conservative (and there could be even more). This issue will remain as it is as even more precedent time passes and the overall court is made even more understanding to the women's rights issue.


Like I've told you pale for close to 3 years now as you keep saying this drastic Anti-Woman change will be happening any day. It's not. Put your efforts to better use helping all the unwanted born children... that would be doing a good thing.

 

[palerider]

Up to bat... STRIKE ONE...you're out! Wrong... we live in a land of laws and those laws are decided by the people who then live under those laws. There are many things that are objected to by various groups, even largely objected to. But in America the majority gets to choose what laws they want and how they want to enforce those laws. They can do this through elections of their representatives and/or through Constitutional Amendments which of course has been done the past.

Poor top gun. I really do believe that you want to make a rational argument in support of your postion, but what you don't seem to be willing to understand (or are too danged stupid to understand) is that unless you have the facts on your side, rational argument simply is not possible.

Sorry topgun, but your argument is a logical fallacy. It is an appeal to popularity. The facts don't change because a large number of people aren't aware of them. Since day one, the main ingredients of your argument have been gross misundersandings of biology and the law, and logical fallacy; primarily appeals to popularity and lets not forget, repeating "its legal" like a parrot on a stick.

Be careful with your appeal to the majority. Barely 17% of the population in the US wants to see abortion on demand continued. If you poll Americans and don't give them the option of abortion if the mother's life is in danger, you can get a majority in favor of abortion on demand. If you include the option of abortion if the mother's life is in danger, you get a clear majority in favor of heavily restricting abortion. If you include rape and incest, you are left with 17% favoring abortion on demand. The majority aren't with you topgun.

I understand this is objectionable to the dictatorship known as the Palerider States of America. However... it is still the case.

More logical fallacy. This one is an appeal to fear. Adhering to the Constitution and respecting the rights that it is supposed to protect does not equal a dictatorship. Your use of the word dictatorship is inaccurate and serves no purpose but to elicit fear. Dictatorships, in case you aren't aware, very often have written constitutions but disregard them if it suits their purposes. Our Constitution is very clear on human rights but you and yours are perfectly happy to disregard it if you favor denying a particular group their rights.

And to your earth is flat or round arguement... if the voting majority of Americans wanted it to be legal to... I'll just pick something off the top of my head... say, commit suicide... then suicide could be made 100% legal.

Again, logical fallacy. This time, appeal to popularity. The facts are what they are. If you can not make a rational argument in support of your postion, no amount of majority vote can make that decision rational. There was a time when the majority believed that blacks were not human beings but were property. The fact that the majority thought that way does not change the fact that they were wrong. The majority simply perpetrated a gross miscarriage of justice and denied an entire class their most basic human rights.

The abortion debate is the same. You seem to be claiming that if the majority want a thing, then it becomes right simply because the majority say so. Tell me, was slavery right because the majority said so?

Again I think you are talking a particular religious philosophy (I know I know you'll play the it's not a religious argument game). However many (vastly most) believe that when it comes to personhood a conception has the "possibility" to become a born person but also know there are multiple very natural things that depending on whether they happen or don't happen to transpire dictate if a "person" will be born. That being the case we get involved into the woman's rights.

This time you start off with appeal to ridicule fallacy. You can't point out any part of my argument that is religious in nature but claim that I am making a religous argument anyway and then switch gears into an appeal to belief fallacy. The fact that many people believe a thing that isn't true does not make it true. That fact only proves that many people are ignorant. And if you hold true to pattern, your reply to that fact will be an appeal to popularity fallacy suggesting that if enough people believe a thing that it becomes true.

But regardless I am taking the REALITY of the situation position. We could call conception a cue ball or Frank Sinatra and it would make no difference. Americans see the need for a medical procedure. Woman cannot be forced to carry a child it is not a naturally possible thing to do... and that is why it will continue to stay in effect.

Sure we could. But it wouldn't alter the fact. Change the word to cue ball and in order to be accurate the definition of cue ball must be human being. And here, your fallacy is that you beg the question. We all know that killing another human being is not a medical procedure. You beg the question and simply assume that the unborn is not a human being but nothing more than a growth to be removed. Until you can prove that they are someithing other than human beings, any attempt to portray them as something else is a logical fallacy.

Do you see a pattern developing here? Every argument you have put up so far is fallacious.

(continued)