A Conception's Right To Life

[palerider]

(continuation)

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.

Sorry, but now you are simply being intellectually dishonest. Slavery was based on the assumption that blacks were not human beings. Abortion on demand is based on an assumption that unborns are not human beings. The order of events is irrelavent to an analogy unless the argument is one predicatd on an order of events. This argument is predicated on a denial of human rights based on an assumption that the one being denied his or her rights is not a human being. Not even a nice try.

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.

I can support my position. Lets here an argument as to why you believe the framers said created instead of born if their belief was that we are deserving of no rights until such time as we are born. They were perfectly aware that when speaking of human beings, there is a difference between the word created and born. They knew the difference.

And then you just have to throw in some fallacy so this time you point out that the courts are also just as capable of logical fallacy as you as if that were something to be proud of. In this case, you rightly note that the court can beg the question with the best of them and simply assume that the founders wrote with a certain intent with no evidence to support that assumption at all. The roe case is full of such assumptions.

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. [/COLOR]

One must be born to be a citizen. The word born refers to citizenship. If this were an argument about citizenship, you would have a valid point. They didn't however, state flatly that we are born with certain rights, but were endowed at the time of our creation (conception) with certain rights and among those is the right to life.

Perhaps you could refer to the dictionary of the day and look up the word created. Websters from just a few years later, for example defines created as "caused to exist". In fact, they stated with their eyes wide open that we come into being with certain rights. Again, the facts just don't support your argument. You simply must engage in logical fallacy. Here, you are blatantly begging the question. That is, you are making an assumption with no evidence at all with which to support that assumption.

caused to exist You can beat this dead horse as long as you want, its not coming back to life. [/quote]

Feel free to believe that all you like. The fact of this discussion proves that it never died in the first place. Again, you beg the question. Logical fallacy with you topgun, all the way down.

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.

Typical of you to not detail the actual reality, but the reality as you wish it were. One thing that has not been around for 36 years is a body of case law that, in fact, answers the question of personhood discussed in the roe case. That body of law is relatively new and is in fact, a key requirement to turning over roe. It is, in fact, the key to turning over roe.

And politicians don't overturn court cases and honest and rational judges don't decide cases based on what politicians want. Now you can argue that judges do that, and have done it before. In roe v wade for example, there was a clear agenda. Tell me, do you get some pride from that? That our supreme court would pervert justice to that degree in order that 40 million human beings could be denied thier most basic right? That sounds a great deal like the suni's in old iraq who took great pride in the fact that their guy could deny anyone any right he chose and back it up with the force of government.

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. /quote]

And here you are back to an appeal to popularity, an appeal to tradition, an appeal to belief, begging the question and a bandwagon fallacy all at once. Logical fallacy really is all you have at your disposal when the facts don't support your position.

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.

There exists an anti abortion on demand majority in the court right now and the two justices who are most likely to retire during the next 4 years are already pro choice. It is wishful thinking to believe that obama will get 3 and even if he does, you and they are left with no rational argument in support of your positon. As I have pointed out, many of the cases that the court reversed stood much longer than 36 years. It may take another 36 and 40 million more dead before roe is overturned. 80 million dead will only make the pro choice side all the more reviled by future generations. You will make hitler, stalin, lenin, mao and pol pot appear to be small timers when compared to the extent of your human rights violations.

And you will still not have a rational argument in support of the position you held. Until you can address the facts head on and prove that unborns are somoething other than human beings, or prove that there is a more fundamental human right than the right to live, you will never be able to present a rational argument in support of your position. You will be nothing more than the minion of an actual dictator pointing out that your guy is still in charge.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

It's a tricky one as sure as chickens is chickens

 

[top gun]

palerider;83543]
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.

It's easy to see you are too emotionally invested to face nearly any of the realities of the situation you are in. It's like watching you treading water floating in the ocean AFTER your ship has already sank screaming... Don't worry my boat is about to resurface and save me.

Not happening my friend.

Be careful with your appeal to the majority. Barely 17% of the population in the US wants to see abortion on demand continued.

Boy you do have problems with numbers!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWeXOjsv58c

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.

Unfortunately for you an abortion ban isn't written into the Constitution and even if it were the system is set up with an easy remedy to amend it.

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.
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?

In a democracy right & wrong (from a legal perspective) is determined by it's people. The majority have a right to create rules and laws that they wish to be governed by. Since not everyone will agree this is the best system there is.

As far as slavery it was wrong and just like the Anti-Woman ban on women's reproductive rights was overturned 36 years ago.

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.

Not at all. The fact that you say that you are not does not change that fact that you are. You present the textbook religious line.

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.

Well as we've covered this ground thousands of times you know that there are all kinds of exemptions in law for killing... even killing the innocent. The killing at times comes from the pregnancy as well. Maybe all pregnancies should be terminated because this sometimes happens. But in reality it's a personal judgment call... and that judgement is called Pro-Choice.

Do you see a pattern developing here?

Yes you are a very bad looser and hate the 36 year precedent of women's reproductive rights so in your down time from Clinic Creeping you type the word "fallacy" a lot to make yourself believe time they are a changin'!

(continued)

 

[top gun]

palerider;83544](continuation)
Sorry, but now you are simply being intellectually dishonest. Slavery was based on the assumption that blacks were not human beings.

No actually slaves were considered human beings that could be owned as property... be it with a perceived worth of only 3/5 the value of White people.

And then you just have to throw in some fallacy so this time you point out that the courts are also just as capable of logical fallacy as you as if that were something to be proud of. In this case, you rightly note that the court can beg the question with the best of them and simply assume that the founders wrote with a certain intent with no evidence to support that assumption at all. The roe case is full of such assumptions.

Yep... me and that United States Supreme Court for the last 36 years... just one big fallacy fest! Must really make you mad that they just ignore all your BS.

One must be born to be a citizen. The word born refers to citizenship. If this were an argument about citizenship, you would have a valid point. They didn't however, state flatly that we are born with certain rights, but were endowed at the time of our creation (conception) with certain rights and among those is the right to life.

Doesn't say conception... you are reading into that. At the time of creation refers to WHEN ALL THINGS BEGAN... THE BEGINING OF TIME not a sexual act resulting in pregnancy. And again in the period, life "as a full person" was considered at birth.

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

Feel free to believe that all you like. The fact of this discussion proves that it never died in the first place. Again, you beg the question. Logical fallacy with you topgun, all the way down.

Funny... the guy at the bottom of the ocean that has already lost his boat is screaming up at those on the shore that he's better off than them!

Sometimes I feel your pain pale. It can't be easy being that stuck on stupid.

I'll let ya get back out on the sidewalk now.

 

[Lagboltz]

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

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?

I have proven your definition of human refers to the dead. Reductio ad absurdum

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/cgi...ction=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."

That argument has nothing to do with your three points, nor my arguments. It is a digression that goes into legal terminology of death.

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.

You are the one who considers dead humans to be covered by the constitution. That is the basis of your arguments.

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.

You are the one carrying on that silly argument. I am showing you how silly it is.

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.

Yes, you are correct that the dead have rights. The 14th amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

As you said, the dead are humans. Therefore they are persons according to Black.

14th Amendment Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

So according to your argument, representation for states should be based on the population of the cemeteries too. Pregnant women should be counted twice.

Citizens born in the US are also persons.
Black's definition of citizen: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The 19th amendment states, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

So by your argument, dead people of both sexes have the right to vote.

By to your definition of human, the list of absurdities go on and on.

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

I am still waiting for a credible argument. You can't explain away the absurdities to which your argument leads.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The pro life argument is totally contingent on showing that a few brainless cells that carry human DNA have rights which override those of the mother in whose womb they grow. And they have failed to do this in a way that makes consistent sense.

But before that can be reasonably debated there are huge inconsitencies in the pro life lobby which need to be addressed.

Many pro lifers are pro war and execution which should rob them of the opportunity to comment further.

Then there are those who do not care/ act about famine and disease due to poverty.
Again these avoidably claim lives of actual people.

The there are those who do not wish to see free healthcare for the poor some of who will die prematurely as a result.

Then there are those who prop up businesses that wreck and take actual lives in countries where the horror of what they do is hidden from the apple pie world of America.

I could go on for ages.

You can only have a sensible debate with a pro lifer who is actually pro life and I am yet to meet one.

They are invariably very right wing and very pro death and they use abortion as a vehicle to demonstrate their piety

 

[Chip]

... ... [Apparently purposely misconstrued beating-around-the-bush nonsense that doesn't come even close to directly answering Palerider's topically relevant tough heart-of-the-matter questions] ... ... .

I am still waiting for a credible argument.

Your'e waiting for a credible argument?!

That's rich.

You can't explain away the absurdities to which your argument leads.

Wow -- are you ever the master projectionist in this thread, Lagboltz!

You dodged my germane topically relevant questions completely.

And you post mentally masturbative BS as your method of dodging Palerider.

You must really have a difficult emotional time with your pro-abortionist position.

Come on, Lagboltz -- stop embarrassing yourself in front of intelligent people ... and summon the courage to address the topically relevant matters of this thread head on.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

We all know that killing another human being is not a medical procedure.

This isn't true either, Pale, a number of countries and some States allow physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients in great pain.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Doctors and Nurses routinely finish patients off if they are old and infirm

 

[Chip]

The pro life argument is totally contingent on showing that a few brainless cells that carry human DNA have rights which override those of the mother in whose womb they grow. And they have failed to do this in a way that makes consistent sense.

But before that can be reasonably debated there are huge inconsitencies in the pro life lobby which need to be addressed.

Many pro lifers are pro war and execution which should rob them of the opportunity to comment further.

Then there are those who do not care/ act about famine and disease due to poverty.
Again these avoidably claim lives of actual people.

The there are those who do not wish to see free healthcare for the poor some of who will die prematurely as a result.

Then there are those who prop up businesses that wreck and take actual lives in countries where the horror of what they do is hidden from the apple pie world of America.

I could go on for ages.

You can only have a sensible debate with a pro lifer who is actually pro life and I am yet to meet one.

They are invariably very right wing and very pro death and they use abortion as a vehicle to demonstrate their piety

Irrational, erroneous, and topically irrelvant.

The pro-abortion (self-described by their spin-moniker "pro-choice") contingent refuses to rationally and scientifically refute the scientific substance of the opening thread.

Both the pro-life and anti-abortion contigents have clearly, concisely, succinctly, appropriately and accurately presented and defended premises and conclusions of the opening thread.

The reality of the right to life of newly conceived people thereby remains unchallenged in this thread.

The pro-abortion contingent would really do well to stay on topic and present only accurately termed science presented in context.

Topic straying meanderings, digressive diversions, sophistry, character assassination, name-calling ad hominems, irrelevant mocking, and the like, the pro-abortion contingent's lastest resorts, score no points with those who pass this way and read this thread.

I didn't create this thread simply to have the pro-life and anti-abortion contigents walk all over the pro-abortion contigent so easily ... but that's exactly what's happened so far ... and it happens partially because the pro-life contigent refuses to stay heart-of-the-matter on scientific and relevant topic.

Those of the pro-abortion ilk who pass this way could really use some better representation in the debate.

Please, pro-abortionists, refer back to the opening thread and if you must attempt refutation, please do so on accurately presented scientific topic.

Thank you.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Maybe you think that the question of a right to life itself is not relevant.

I do.

And to have serious debate you need a consistent understanding of that before you can talk about applying it to an embryo.

If people cannot even maintain consistency on the subject of right to life how do can you hope to get a reasoned argument on your topic which is a subset of it?

 

[Chip]

Maybe you think that the question of a right to life itself is not relevant.

I do.

If what you are saying is that you don't think that the foundational right to life exists at all, that it doesn't exist for anyone, then rationally, logically, you are simply posting here in the wrong thread.

You need to be posting in this thread: Realities of Rights.

If you can rationally, logically refute the existence of the foundational right to life in the "Realities of Rights" thread, then, thereby, you automatically win your point in this thread.

So far, however, the foundational right to life has not been seriously challenged, anywhere, let alone in the proper "Realities of Rights" thread.

So good luck to you on that one.

And to have serious debate you need a consistent understanding of that before you can talk about applying it to an embryo.

Indeed, if you pro-abortionists don't think that the right to life exists, then there is no common ground for a good debate in this thread.

Science unconjecturably presents the personhood of the newly conceived.

But the topical title of "A Conception's Right To Life" is rendered moot for those who don't think that the right to life is a foundational human right.

If people cannot even maintain consistency on the subject of right to life how do can you hope to get a reasoned argument on your topic which is a subset of it?

Exactly.

If the pro-abortionists cannot be consistent, saying as they sometimes do that the right to life applies for some but not for others, they indeed have thus yet to show a reasoned argument on that subset of this topic.

Those of us arguing from the pro-life and anti-abortion positions accept what modern humanity unconjecturably recognizes but may sometimes, sadly, take for granted or be bullied into self-denying: the existence of the foundational right to life.

The right to life is a given, an obvious reality, and this thread was created in conjunction with the obvious existence of the right to life.

But for those like you who don't think that right exists, a mere presentation of your disagreement of the existence of the right to life, followed by departing this thread for the "Realities of Rights" thread to deal with your denial of it there, is really the right thing to do ...

... And leave this thread for those of us who agree on the existence of the foundational right to life for all.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Your premiss is wrong and so everything that follows from it is too.

My post was very clear.

I am saying that until you have a consistnet view of what right to life means how can you discuss its specific application to a few brainless cells.

I am yet to meet someone who has an understanding of right to life which is not hugely hypocritical and therefore confused.

Is that clear?

 

[Chip]

Your premiss is wrong and so everything that follows from it is too.

Hardly.

My post was very clear.

I responded to your post the way it was written.

Now you're changing the meaning of what you wrote.

You do, however, have a tendency toward being obtuse.

I am saying that until you have a consistnet view of what right to life means

The onus of proving the existence of the right to life in this thread is not on the pro-life and anti-abortion contigents.

The existence of the right to life is not at question in this thread.

There is no "inconsistency" in the presentation of the right to life as a premise in this thread.

There is no debatable "meaning" of the right to life at issue in this thread.

In fact, it's really a no-brainer even in the Realities of Rights thread.

You may obfuscate the matter by denying the right to life to some, but your denial is really irrelevant to the reality of the simple, straight forward nature of the right to life, that it applies to everyone, and that it cannot rightly be revoked etc. for matters other than in sad restrospect and with appeal to immediate life or death self-defense.

The meaning of the right to life is obvious and thus not at issue in this thread.

If you have a "meaning" issue with the right to life, that is more appropriately taken up in the Realities of Rights thread.

Deal with it there ... then come back to here.

It does not matter if some on either side may advocate situational violation of the right to life. An advocation of violation does not rationally detract from the simple, straightforward meaning of the right to life itself.

What matters is that the right to life exists, that it applies to all in the manner I have stated, and that the newly conceived is a person who is alive.

If you still have a "meaning" problem with the right to life, hash it out in the Realities of Rights thread.

how can you discuss its specific application to a few brainless cells.

And here you go -- your "a few brainless cells" denigration indicates unconjecturably that you've yet to accept the scientific declaration that a conception is a living human being, a person, from that moment on.

So, since you really have a problem with the science of the matter, post an accurate, in-context scientific refutation of the opening post.

But don't rationalize and hide behind sophistry of "the debatable 'meaning' of the right to life" when that's simply not at issue as well as not your foundational issue, but is merely your excusive digressive diversion for being unable to refute the topically relevant science.

I am yet to meet someone who has an understanding of right to life which is not hugely hypocritical and therefore confused.

Irrelevant.

Are you so codependent that whatever everyone else erronoeously might say makes it impossible for you to hold an accurate and true relevant thought on the matter in your head?!

It doesn't matter how people might differ on the matter -- you should be able to think accurately regardless of the mistakes of others, whether they be in your contigent or your adversary's.

Go to the Realities of Rights thread and learn all about human rights and why the simple, straightforward right to life applies to all as I've so stated, regardless of your projected "hugely hypocritical" excuse.

If you're confused, get yourself straightened out on the matter, and then you will be more likely able to convince others.

Now, enough digression.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You just misunderstood my post

I have clarified it for you

You got it wrong, get over it.