Abortion

[Dante the Marxist]

Can PR provide any non-religious reason to condemn abortion as a "bad thing"?

No. This proves that, as he likes saying, his arguments are an "article of his faith".

 

[palerider]

So you can't demonstrate that you know what each person on Earth thinks?

What any individual thinks is irrelavent. Sociopaths think that killing those who are a problem to them is just fine. Because a sociopath thinks it, do you suppose that we should simply make murder legal.

I'll take that as a 'Yes, Zylstra, my posts are irrelevant'

You should take it as I don't understand what you are trying to say or what you are getting at. If you prefer not to make yourself clear, then obviously your motives are suspect.

:lol:

And how is an ideology built on individualistic idealism racist?

Modern liberalism is not built on individualistic idealism.

AA is not based on liberal principles

It is based on modern liberal principles. Again, you fail to differentiate between classical liberalism and modern liberalism which are polar opposites.

Is this whole tangent meant to disguise the fact that you can't rationally defend your position on abortion?

Slavery was recognized and protected for a period of time before any attempts to get rid of it could be made.

And blacks were believed for a period of time to be something other than human beings and not entitled to any form of human rights.

 

[palerider]

Can PR provide any non-religious reason to condemn abortion as a "bad thing"?

I challenge you to show any religious argument that I have made. As with all choicers, you make a great many claims that you have no hope of substantiating.

Sorry you painted yourself into a corner when you made the claim that you had "dealt" with me on another thread. Clearly, you didn't as you have shucked and jived, dodged and weaved since you began this discussion in every way possible to avoid even talking about abortion. I understand that you are trying to save some face, but you aren't going to be able to even begin to save some face till you get back on the topic of abortion.

 

[palerider]

In the course of this thread, you have not produced any evidence for your position. At least I have a good reason, if not hard evidence.

Sorry, but denial of the evidence that has been produced is the worst possible argument. It makes you appear to be nothing more than a flat earther railing against science that it is not only wrong, but doesn't constitute evidence of anything.

I thought you would be a tougher nut to crack, but alas, your whole persona is no more than so much smoke and mirrors. Who would have thought that your whole argument would come down to a childlike denial.

 

[palerider]

No. This proves that, as he likes saying, his arguments are an "article of his faith".

Again, you lie. Is it true that denial and lies are really all you have. How pathetic is that. How about you step up and prove that you aren't a liar by providng any religious arugments that I have made in support of my position.

You two are the most pathetic couple to come along in some time.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Sorry, but denial of the evidence that has been produced is the worst possible argument. It makes you appear to be nothing more than a flat earther railing against science that it is not only wrong, but doesn't constitute evidence of anything.

I thought you would be a tougher nut to crack, but alas, your whole persona is no more than so much smoke and mirrors. Who would have thought that your whole argument would come down to a childlike denial.

I invite you to provide evidence for your position. The "evidence" you have given was a bunch of qoutes from college professors and textbooks.

 

[palerider]

I invite you to provide evidence for your position. The "evidence" you have given was a bunch of qoutes from college professors and textbooks.

Actually, the textbooks I referenced were written by doctors who are acknowledged as being at the top of their field, and not merely textbooks, but books used in medical schools around the world to teach the subjects of embryology, fetology, developmental biology, and OB/gyn. Again, if you can prove that the materials being taught in medical school are opinion rather than fact, by all means do so.

If you can provide equally credible material that challenges the statements in the books, by all means step up and do it.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Actually, the textbooks I referenced were written by doctors who are acknowledged as being at the top of their field, and not merely textbooks, but books used in medical schools around the world to teach the subjects of embryology, fetology, developmental biology, and OB/gyn. Again, if you can prove that the materials being taught in medical school are opinion rather than fact, by all means do so.

If you can provide equally credible material that challenges the statements in the books, by all means step up and do it.

My entire argument is that fetuses are non sentient, and you counter it with a legal basis, which has nothing to do with science. Just because they are alive does not mean they have to live.

 

[palerider]

My entire argument is that fetuses are non sentient, and you counter it with a legal basis, which has nothing to do with science. Just because they are alive does not mean they have to live.

Your argument is that they are non sentient, but as of yet, you have not proved that sentience is what makes you a human being. Till you prove that they are something other than human beings, you can't get around the constitution.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Your argument is that they are non sentient, but as of yet, you have not proved that sentience is what makes you a human being. Till you prove that they are something other than human beings, you can't get around the constitution.

Animals are sentient but you enjoy the killing of them. Do you know what the word "hypocrite" means? Among other things it's a selective indignation, which you have taken to the point of obsession.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Your argument is that they are non sentient, but as of yet, you have not proved that sentience is what makes you a human being. Till you prove that they are something other than human beings, you can't get around the constitution.

See? Legal, not scientific evidence. This argument of yours is an article of your faith in the constitution. Of course they are human beings, but someone capable of thoughts should be able to override thier rights.

 

[palerider]

Animals are sentient but you enjoy the killing of them. Do you know what the word "hypocrite" means? Among other things it's a selective indignation, which you have taken to the point of obsession.

I find no guarantee of the protection of animal rights in the constitution or even any recognition of them.

And whoever said that I enjoy killing animals. I do kill a certain number that I eat. The last time I killed an animal simply because I could was a very long time ago when I was a child. It was a bird, a starling to be exact, with a BB gun.

By the way, it isn't me that is making the argument that because unborns at the early stages are not sentient that they should be allowed to be killed for any or no reason; and that fact should be an indication to folks like Dante who make the sentience argument how wrong they are. If animals are sentient, but not human beings, it stands to reason that sentience is not what makes a human being a human being.

 

[palerider]

See? Legal, not scientific evidence. This argument of yours is an article of your faith in the constitution. Of course they are human beings, but someone capable of thoughts should be able to override thier rights.

Sorry guy, you have brought a gum eraser to an intellectual gun fight. I have provided the science that states explicitly that unborns at any stage of developoment are human beings. That is the only place for science in this discussion as it is a legal matter.

The constitution protects the rights of all persons. Person is a legal term defined by Black's Legal Dictionary, that is THE legal dictionary used by every superior court in the country including the Supreme Court, as "a human being". Human being is not a legal term. Human being is the mundane for the scientific term Homo sapiens sapiens. If one can prove that unborns are something other than human beings, one can exclude them from constitutional protection as they are not persons.

That is the dodge that the supreme court pulled when deciding roe. The assumed that unborns were something other than human beings on the basis that at that time, no case could be cited that held that an unborn was a person under the 14th amendment. That is to say, no case could be cited in which one had been convicted of a crime for denying an unborn life, liberty, or property.

The court did acknowledge that should their assumption that unborns were something other than human beings be proven wrong or if legal precedent should come into being that establishes the personhood of the unborn that their decision must be overturned as unconstitutional.

Your argument that someone more intelligent than an unborn should be able to kill them just because is nothing more than your own opinion and completely unsupportable. As I pointed out in the beginning, you can not rationally defend your argument, while I make no points that are not thoroughly supported. Since I can support every part of my own argument and you can support none of yours, it is you who is arguing from a position of faith. Maybe, being a marxist, you don't know what the word means. Allow me:

faith - n - belief that is not based on proof

The science that states that unborns are human beings is real. The constitution and law that derives from it is real. Your opinion is nothing more than that and is not based on anything actual; ie faith.

 

[Dr.Who]

Animals are sentient but you enjoy the killing of them. Do you know what the word "hypocrite" means? Among other things it's a selective indignation, which you have taken to the point of obsession.

I belong to PETA. People for Eating Tasty Animals.

I could not do that unless I knew that being human made on a person and being some other species made one some animal that we just might eat.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Sorry guy, you have brought a gum eraser to an intellectual gun fight. I have provided the science that states explicitly that unborns at any stage of developoment are human beings. That is the only place for science in this discussion as it is a legal matter.

The constitution protects the rights of all persons. Person is a legal term defined by Black's Legal Dictionary, that is THE legal dictionary used by every superior court in the country including the Supreme Court, as "a human being". Human being is not a legal term. Human being is the mundane for the scientific term Homo sapiens sapiens. If one can prove that unborns are something other than human beings, one can exclude them from constitutional protection as they are not persons.

That is the dodge that the supreme court pulled when deciding roe. The assumed that unborns were something other than human beings on the basis that at that time, no case could be cited that held that an unborn was a person under the 14th amendment. That is to say, no case could be cited in which one had been convicted of a crime for denying an unborn life, liberty, or property.

The court did acknowledge that should their assumption that unborns were something other than human beings be proven wrong or if legal precedent should come into being that establishes the personhood of the unborn that their decision must be overturned as unconstitutional.

Your argument that someone more intelligent than an unborn should be able to kill them just because is nothing more than your own opinion and completely unsupportable. As I pointed out in the beginning, you can not rationally defend your argument, while I make no points that are not thoroughly supported. Since I can support every part of my own argument and you can support none of yours, it is you who is arguing from a position of faith. Maybe, being a marxist, you don't know what the word means. Allow me:

faith - n - belief that is not based on proof

The science that states that unborns are human beings is real. The constitution and law that derives from it is real. Your opinion is nothing more than that and is not based on anything actual; ie faith.

I never denied that fetuses were human beings. I did denie that they are people. There is a difference. And everytime you bring in the law, your argument becomes less valid.