A Conception's Right To Life

[Chip]

You just misunderstood my post

I have clarified it for you

You got it wrong, get over it.

Translation: "I, Dawkinsrocks, have nothing relevant to post in this thread, and I've simply been obfuscating with BS to divert attention from the fact that I simply have nothing relevant to post here, yet I'm bothered by the existence of the right to life of newly conceived people."

I knew what you were up to ... I just wanted to see how much rope you'd use to hang yourself.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

First my post was irrelevant

Then I had changed my point

Now I am asking for rope to hang myself.

And all I have done is made the point that there is not even concensus re the right to life.

If you are so desperate to rubbish my argument why not have a stab at doing so?

I would be a lot more impressed than I am with your ludicrous attempts at discrediting me.

By the way, they backfire.

 

[Dr.Who]

First my post was irrelevant

yes. But I never thought you would say it.

Now I am asking for rope to hang myself.

If we had to charge you for rope not only would you go broke but we would all run out of rope.

In your defense, when you first started posting here almost 100% of what you said was rubbish. Your percentage has decreased greatly.

Of course this post that I am making fun of just brought down your batting average.

I do hope that while I do not approve of making fun of people I have chosen to do make fun of the post this time because I am pretty sure you did not mean to type what you just typed. so I am not really making fun of the post you intended.

And all I have done is made the point that there is not even concensus re the right to life.

Sure there is. The rest of us on the pro life side all agree that if it is human, alive, and innocent then it has a right to life.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Nope, I meant every word I said and was describing the twisting and turning of Chip's attempt at undermining my point. He couldn't do it. Let's see if you did.

Now. here is my point again.

You cannot consistently hold a pro-life stance on anything whilst you are a fan of anything that avoidably takes human life.

So if you are a fan of war, execution, povery etc etc then you do not have a consistent understanding of right to life.

So until this is resolved it is meaningless to talk about the right to life of a few brainless cells.

I know that is hard for you to grasp because it ruins your silly ideology. For example, it means that you can no longer go around bleating about the rights of the foetus whilst simultaneously wanting people executed form murder which implies the death of innocents wrongly convicted.

That is why you rubbish me and not what I write,

You can't and maintain your nasty and ill thought out world view.

Now Andy, as I meant every single word of this, go on, see if you can take a stab at responding to what I wrote rather than trying to undermine me.

 

[samsara15]

A zygote is not yet a human being. It is merely a clump of dividing human cells. It cannot think, and it cannot form the concept 'I". It denigrates the definition of a human being to label a fertilized egg as a human being. It shows a deep and abiding contempt for those who have been murdered in the sad course of human history to label a three month human embryo a human being.

 

[Chip]

You cannot consistently hold a pro-life stance on anything whilst you are a fan of anything that avoidably takes human life.

Topically irrelevant and immaterial.

You have made no "point".

Whether an advocate of the right to life for newly conceived people is pro-life or not in no way subtracts from the existence of the pre-natal person or that person's thereby intrinsic right to life.

A number of anti-abortionists are not pro-life. Yet they present the truthful argument that the newly conceived is a person and thereby endowed with the foundational right to life.

Anti-abortionists may argue for the death penalty, thereby depriving bound and confined not-immediately-threatening prisoners of their right to life, and you may find that hypocritical.

But your findings would be, once again, erroneous.

Those anti-abortionists who argue for the death penalty are simply not, by definition, pro-life, and if they are sufficiently self-aware and honest they'd say so.

Because those anti-abortionists are not pro-life, it is not expected of them to be "pro-life consistent", and if you expect them to be your expectations are unrealistic. They are thus not behaving hypocritcally.

It would be hypocritical of a pro-life person to advocate for the death penalty while at the same time unjustifiably advocating depriving others of their right to life, but, by obvious definition, it is not hypocritical of a non-pro-life person to do so.

People who admit to being anti-abortionist and admit to not being pro-life will recognize the existence of the right to life, but they will usually choose based on "innocence" or "guilt" who should retain or relenquish that right. There's no pro-life hypocrisy there because they never professed to be pro-life in the first place!

Nevertheless, the fact that some anti-abortionists are not pro-life, the fact that they may circumstantially advocate the violation of the right to life of some, does in no way detract from their presentation of the right to life of the newly conceived, their understanding of the right to life, or the validity of their presentation.

I am pro-life. That means the only death in conflict I allow is the incidental death of someone who is in the very act of trying to unjustifiably harm and take the life of another, and said attacker is incidentally killed by the rational self-defense employed to protect the person(s) the attacker is attacking.

There isn't any relevant situation you can conjure where I will depart from the pro-life position.

But even if I did, that would in no way detract from the existence and right to life of newly conceived people. It would simply more likely mean that I'm not really pro-life but probably just anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia and whatever.

Your assumption also implies that one must be pro-life to grasp and present the right to life, and your assumption is simply erroneous.

For instance, I may eat nutritious steak and turn up my nose at nutritious liver, and thus I may not be consistent in my meat-eating, but I still recognize the nutrition in both. It only means that I simply choose not to eat nutritious liver. I can still present with equal accuracy the nutritional particulars in detail of both steak and liver.

Your argument in analogy falsely concludes that if I don't eat liver, then I don't sufficiently grasp the nutritional value of steak to present it accurately or, in the topically relevant case, to be "allowed" to argue for the right to life of newly conceived people. Your logic is, of course, in obvious error.

Likewise, just because a non-pro-life person grasps the right to life of the newly conceived but advocates the death penalty does not mean that person doesn't recognize the right to life of the person being put to death. It only means they choose to put that person to death for their crimes.

Your argument is irrational, Dawkinsrocks, and I contend that it's simply more of your attempt to sophistrically squirm an excuse for you to support murderous abortion and silence those who have easily refuted your sophistry excuses ...

So until this is resolved it is meaningless to talk about the right to life of a few brainless cells.

... Which you make so foundationally self-evident with your ubiquitous "few brainless cells" erroneous belittlement of the newly conceived person, clearly presenting that you are either an ageist or incapable of grasping the simply stated scienctific truth of the personhood of the newly conceived ... or you're simply a utilitarian moral relativist who could care less about advocating murderous abortion if it's so convenient for you.

 

[Chip]

A zygote is not yet a human being. It is merely a clump of dividing human cells. It cannot think, and it cannot form the concept 'I". It denigrates the definition of a human being to label a fertilized egg as a human being. It shows a deep and abiding contempt for those who have been murdered in the sad course of human history to label a three month human embryo a human being.

Your first two sentences are simply false. You need to read the opening post in this thread to understand why they are false.

Your third sentence is irrelevant.

And your fourth and fifth sentences are also simply false.

The bottom line is that you are a pro-abortionist.

After you read the opening post in this thread, if you can present an accurate scientific refutation of the substance of the science of the opening post that rationally concludes the personhood of the newly conceived and thus the right to life of the newly conceived person, then please post it.

Otherwise, read backwards from here and you'll see all the ways in which all your pro-abortionist's sophistries have been easily and completely refuted.

 

[top gun]

A zygote is not yet a human being. It is merely a clump of dividing human cells. It cannot think, and it cannot form the concept 'I". It denigrates the definition of a human being to label a fertilized egg as a human being. It shows a deep and abiding contempt for those who have been murdered in the sad course of human history to label a three month human embryo a human being.

And you know it's amazing to me that Anti-Women Anti-Choice Clinic Creepers don't at least have the common sense to understand the country is moving in the opposite direction from their Gestapo type mindset.



Obama lifts abortion-related funding rules for foreign aid groups
Family-planning advocates praised President Barack Obama's move to allow funding to international groups that provide abortions, saying thousands of women's lives would be saved.
BY MARGARET TALEV
McClatchy News Service

WASHINGTON -- President Obama signed a memorandum Friday that ends a prohibition on supplying federal family-planning funds and contraceptives to international aid groups that provide abortions, abortion referrals or abortion counseling.

Obama's move came a day after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion rights Supreme Court ruling of 1973, and an annual march in Washington to protest the decision. Abortion opponents were critical of Obama's order, while abortion rights groups said it could help prevent millions of unintended pregnancies worldwide and save thousands of women's lives each year.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called Obama's move ``welcome news to the poorest women and families in the world.''

Obama's order followed a series of economic and national security meetings on Friday, as well as calls to several world leaders and a morning event where Obama emphasized his desire for bipartisan solutions to the economic crisis. He was to spend at least part of Saturday in another White House meeting on the economy.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Hey Chip

The subject is 'a conception's right to life' and you say that the subject of the right to life is topically irrelevant???

So you want a discussion about the conceptions right to life without any concencus on the right to life.

I suspect you don't want it because like every pro lifer I have ever encountered you are selectively pro life and when this hypocrisy is challenged you have to get all irrational rather than accept that it is totally inconsistent to hold the typical neocon view that potential people have a right to life that actual people don't.

Your argument that you can talk about the right to life of the foetus without clearly understanding what that means is embarrassing.

BTW do you write such long winded posts in the hope that volume will overcome intelligence?

 

[Chip]

Hey Chip

The subject is 'a conception's right to life' and you say that the subject of the right to life is topically irrelevant???

So you want a discussion about the conceptions right to life without any concencus on the right to life.

I suspect you don't want it because like every pro lifer I have ever encountered you are selectively pro life and when this hypocrisy is challenged you have to get all irrational rather than accept that it is totally inconsistent to hold the typical neocon view that potential people have a right to life that actual people don't.

Your argument that you can talk about the right to life of the foetus without clearly understanding what that means is embarrassing.

BTW do you write such long winded posts in the hope that volume will overcome intelligence?

Erroneous and irrational.

Not only do you reply like you didn't grasp the easily understandable concepts I just presented to you ...

... But you continue to make erroneous unwarranted assumptions about my political positions and about this issue in general, and then you refuse to let go of your unwarranted erroneous assumptions no matter how often you're obviously corrected.

It's as if once you get a delusion in your head, no amount of facts and truth will dissuade you, probably because you are emotionally vested in your pro-abortionist position.

I have to wonder if you've ever been in any way related to an abortion.

 

[Chip]

President Obama signed a memorandum Friday that ends a prohibition on supplying federal family-planning funds and contraceptives to international aid groups that provide abortions, abortion referrals or abortion counseling. ... ...

Which simply proves that BHO is nothing special, a ubiquitous pro-abortionist liberal Democrat.

In general, America deserved better than GWB eight years ago and America deserves better than BHO today.

That BHO would make one of his first acts an additional facilitation of murderous abortion is not surprising considering he made it clear during his campaign that he would pander to the extremist faction of pro-abortionists that contributed to his campaign when he dishonestly replied that "it's above my pay grade" to state if he believes that a human being begins to live at the moment of conception.

At least Joe Biden was honest and made it unmistakably clear to all that he believes the scientifically proven fact that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

Too bad it isn't Joe Biden sitting in the Oval Office ... though there's no guarantee he wouldn't pander to the extemist pro-abortion group that financed his campaign either.

It is very sad that we still have flat-earthers in office, people who are still operating in the non-scientific dark ages with respect to finding and facing the facts of truth.

Science will win out, however, as it always historically does ... indicating, as polls continue to increasingly show, that emotional dinosaurs like BHO are a vanishing breed.

 

[Lagboltz]

A zygote is not yet a human being. It is merely a clump of dividing human cells. It cannot think, and it cannot form the concept 'I". It denigrates the definition of a human being to label a fertilized egg as a human being. It shows a deep and abiding contempt for those who have been murdered in the sad course of human history to label a three month human embryo a human being.

Samsara, you are going over old ground that was covered somewhere in the last interminable 440 posts. I will fill you in. Essentially the argument of the anti-choice movement represented here is that scientists refer to "human zygotes". They are human because of the deoxyribonucleic acid, a chemical template for humans. The next step is that Black's Law Dictionary defines "person" as "human", therefore any mention of person in the constitution means human, and therefore a zygote. They also consider that frozen zygotes and dead people are human too.

They say, therefore the zygotes with no nervous system have the rights of the constitution. These anti-choice fundamentalists will scream at you and call you names if you suggest that the constitution is referring to humans that are born or sentient or conscious like you are doing.

Some of them really don't care at all about the sad course of human history, and have literally equated the practice of abortion to the Nazi mass murder of the Jewish people. They consider that abortion is also mass murder and refuse to recognize that a mothers choice to terminate a pregnancy even when it is a blob of cells, is not equivalent to the living conscious agony of gas chambers. That is the type of people you are dealing with here.

My take on this is that zygotes are indeed human in a sense, and dead people are indeed human in a different sense. They both contain human DNA templates. Our living functioning population is human in even different sense. But the fundamentalist anti-choice people don't want to make any distinction. And they claim that the founders of the constitution don't make that distinction. They will scream at you and call you names if you try to make that distinction.

So their argument becomes ludicrous when they give zygotes and dead people constitutional rights. Dead people should have the right to vote. The census should also count people in cemeteries, and count pregnant women twice. The list goes on.

Their proof tries to use hard logic on elastic English words with multiple meanings. Any mention that you can't use hard logic on English words without consideration of the multiple meanings in natural language, will bring more screaming and insults at you for being dogmatic, stupid, etc.

So that is the story as far as the particular argument you are making.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Chip

Maybe the problem is that your posts are so long and boring

It is possible that I miss the gems you claim because I have fallen asleep by the time you make them

If you have a treal point why not make it succinctly

And if you haven't, don't make it at all

 

[samsara15]

My problem is that I have just finished taking a biology course. What emerges from meiosis is not yet a human being, by my definition of the term. It is not yet concious, in any sense of the way we define consciousness. DNA is not yet a human being. What apparently drives the anti-abortion people seems to be emotion, not reason. Emotion so strong that it will attempt to use any means to achieve ideological victory.

 

[Chip]

Samsara, you are going over old ground that was covered somewhere in the last interminable 440 posts. I will fill you in. Essentially the argument of the anti-choice movement represented here is that scientists refer to "human zygotes". They are human because of the deoxyribonucleic acid, a chemical template for humans. The next step is that Black's Law Dictionary defines "person" as "human", therefore any mention of person in the constitution means human, and therefore a zygote. They also consider that frozen zygotes and dead people are human too.

They say, therefore the zygotes with no nervous system have the rights of the constitution. These anti-choice fundamentalists will scream at you and call you names if you suggest that the constitution is referring to humans that are born or sentient or conscious like you are doing.

Some of them really don't care at all about the sad course of human history, and have literally equated the practice of abortion to the Nazi mass murder of the Jewish people. They consider that abortion is also mass murder and refuse to recognize that a mothers choice to terminate a pregnancy even when it is a blob of cells, is not equivalent to the living conscious agony of gas chambers. That is the type of people you are dealing with here.

My take on this is that zygotes are indeed human in a sense, and dead people are indeed human in a different sense. They both contain human DNA templates. Our living functioning population is human in even different sense. But the fundamentalist anti-choice people don't want to make any distinction. And they claim that the founders of the constitution don't make that distinction. They will scream at you and call you names if you try to make that distinction.

So their argument becomes ludicrous when they give zygotes and dead people constitutional rights. Dead people should have the right to vote. The census should also count people in cemeteries, and count pregnant women twice. The list goes on.

Their proof tries to use hard logic on elastic English words with multiple meanings. Any mention that you can't use hard logic on English words without consideration of the multiple meanings in natural language, will bring more screaming and insults at you for being dogmatic, stupid, etc.

So that is the story as far as the particular argument you are making.

More erroneous, out of context, mental masturbation from Lagboltz, as usual.