Abortion

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't make religious arguments as they are pointless. I merely pointed out that your suggestion that you "proved" anything using the Bible was no more, and no less than blatant hypocricy on your part as I am sure that you don't subscribe to putting homosexuals to death.

The point I was making with the Bible reference was that there is no sanctity of life in our cultural tradition based as it is in the violent Mosaic Law.

You keep thinking that I'm trying to prove something to you, I'm not. I don't agree with you and I don't care that you don't agree with me. This is a discussion site, you are NOT going to be convinced so one cannot do anything but argue with you endlessly. I like poking fun at you and I will do so as it suits me.

 

[GenSeneca]

Pale, you're beyond hope. You're one of the very ones that gives our side of the issue a bad name because you're not even willing to work with those who agree with you on 95% of the issue.

What do you mean by "willing to work with those who agree on 95% of the issue"?

In other words, you're nothing but a disingenuous ideologue who will twist, turn, and contort anything to support your flawed position.

I have seen no flaws in his arguments and I'm saying that as someone who has supported abortion in the cases of rape and incest. I cannot make a rational or intellectually honest defense of supporting abortion on those conditions.

You claim to be the end-all, be-all of Biology

Clearly he does not claim to be this. He has offered credible, legitimate, authoritative sources that support his position. He has not simply declared himself to be a credible, legitimate, authoritative source and asked others to take his word for it.

but there are tens of thousands of REAL Biologists, in all disciplines who discount your position

Post some of these examples that refute the statements made by Pale's sources.

You've lost, and you're too prideful to admit it.

Pale should be proud, he has bested everyone.

 

[GenSeneca]

This is a discussion site, you are NOT going to be convinced so one cannot do anything but argue with you endlessly.

I think your are wrong about convincing Pale of your position. If you had the scientific facts to back up your positions, he would only be showing intellectual dishonesty by not accepting scientific fact. You have no such facts on your side, therefore you are the one showing intellectual dishonesty in continuing to reject the scientific facts supporting his position.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I think your are wrong about convincing Pale of your position. If you had the scientific facts to back up your positions, he would only be showing intellectual dishonesty by not accepting scientific fact. You have no such facts on your side, therefore you are the one showing intellectual dishonesty in continuing to reject the scientific facts supporting his position.

The whole issue of abortion is not one of science. Science cannot tells us whether a woman should be able to control her own body and all the things in it? If you have read my posts on abortion you'll know that I don't think abortions are a good idea, but here is an issue where YOU are desiring more government interference in people's lives. Where is you libertarian, anti-statist attitude now?

 

[GenSeneca]

The whole issue of abortion is not one of science. Science cannot tells us whether a woman should be able to control her own body and all the things in it? If you have read my posts on abortion you'll know that I don't think abortions are a good idea, but here is an issue where YOU are desiring more government interference in people's lives. Where is you libertarian, anti-statist attitude now?

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

That "clump of non-viable cells" is an individual human being and that is not opinion, its scientific fact. Your position supporting abortion on demand violates the rights of both the unborn and the father. To you, neither of those individuals have any rights where abortion is concerned.

Also, IF YOU HAD READ MY POSTS, I do not support bans on abortion. So I am NOT "desiring more government interference in peoples lives" as you so wrongfully stated.

 

[samsara15]

Conservatives are anti-statist only when it suits their purposes to be so.

 

[GenSeneca]

Conservatives are anti-statist only when it suits their purposes to be so.

Read my post above yours and enjoy eating crow.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

That "clump of non-viable cells" is an individual human being and that is not opinion, its scientific fact. Your position supporting abortion on demand violates the rights of both the unborn and the father. To you, neither of those individuals have any rights where abortion is concerned.

Also, IF YOU HAD READ MY POSTS, I do not support bans on abortion. So I am NOT "desiring more government interference in peoples lives" as you so wrongfully stated.

If you don't support a ban on abortion then how do you propose to stop abortions?

The argument you and Pale present is a semantic construct based on your own definitions and values, I think that's fine because you are entitled. But I just don't happen to agree with you. That a "clump of cells is a human being is a scientific fact" depends on how you define "human being". More correctly, I think, would be to say that it is alive, a life, but so what? We kill billions of lives each year for our comfort and convenience without a second thought. The basis for your whole argument lies in a religious perspective that says human life is special and deserves rights denied to all other lifeforms. I don't buy that.

There is a further religious assumption in your argument in that fetal life is "innocent" and therefore deserves special treatment. I don't happen to agree with that definition of "innocent" either.

Abortion is an emotional issue and will not be decided on scientific facts anymore than eugenics was decided on scientific facts.

 

[GenSeneca]

If you don't support a ban on abortion then how do you propose to stop abortions?

By educating people that despite what people like you have drummed into their heads for decades, its not a "non viable clump of cells" its an individual human being.

The argument you and Pale present is a semantic construct based on your own definitions and values

human being
–noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.

The only semantic constructs are the ones that you go on to state below:

...depends on how you define "human being".

That is a semantic argument and the same one I've had with PLC1. If your definition of "Human Being" involves unprovable, untestable conditions such as the soul or sentience, then you're making a theoretical argument based on theology and/or philosophy and any such arguments are purely academic.

More correctly, I think, would be to say that it is alive, a life, but so what? We kill billions of lives each year for our comfort and convenience without a second thought.

You mean like animals, who are not "individuals of the genus Homo Sapien"? Such arguments are an exercise in irrelevance.

The basis for your whole argument lies in a religious perspective that says human life is special and deserves rights denied to all other lifeforms.

I'm not religious so such a claim is a red herring and a strawman.

My "perspective" is derived from the document that established my individual rights as self-evident and unalienable.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

There is a further religious assumption in your argument in that fetal life is "innocent" and therefore deserves special treatment. I don't happen to agree with that definition of "innocent" either.

Guilt and Innocence are legal terms. You choose to look at them as religious terms because it serves your red herring/strawman argument.

Abortion is an emotional issue and will not be decided on scientific facts anymore than eugenics was decided on scientific facts.

Slavery was also an emotional issue. Science, reason, rationality and logic won the day in dissolving that denial of individual rights. So long as people like yourself deny science, avoid reason, eschew rationality, ignore logic and remain in the majority, the issue will not be decided based on scientific facts but purely irrational, illogical, unscientific, unreasonable emotions and individual rights will continue to be denied.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

By educating people that despite what people like you have drummed into their heads for decades, its not a "non viable clump of cells" its an individual human being.

I agree that education is the way to deal with the problem despite your attack on me personally.

human being
–noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.

Is a fetus an idividual? Maybe, it depends on how you define it.

That is a semantic argument and the same one I've had with PLC1. If your definition of "Human Being" involves unprovable, untestable conditions such as the soul or sentience, then you're making a theoretical argument based on theology and/or philosophy and any such arguments are purely academic.

You mean like animals, who are not "individuals of the genus Homo Sapien"? Such arguments are an exercise in irrelevance.

If you have no way to tell one kind of life from another, then you cannot assign value to each one. Why you give humans a right that you deny to animals is as yet unstated. Why? It's an arbitrary dividing line, life is life, it all comes from the same source and we are all made of the same stuff.

Introducing the idea of a strawman is simply a way for you to refuse to discuss honest differences in perspective.

My "perspective" is derived from the document that established my individual rights as self-evident and unalienable.

So? What makes that document any more viable or believable or having more authority than any other document? It's simply what you have chosen to accept--which is exactly what religious people do, they accept as FACT or TRUTH what they decide to accept.

Guilt and Innocence are legal terms. You choose to look at them as religious terms because it serves your red herring/strawman argument.

They are also philosophical terms with great weight in our culture. People are fairly accepting of capital punishment because the victims are judged guilty. The innocence of babies is one the stock-in-trade arguments of the anti-abortion movement--babies don't deserve to die. If you wish to ignore that common sentiment, then by all means do so.

Slavery was also an emotional issue. Science, reason, rationality and logic won the day in dissolving that denial of individual rights. So long as people like yourself deny science, avoid reason, eschew rationality, ignore logic and remain in the majority, the issue will not be decided based on scientific facts but purely irrational, illogical, unscientific, unreasonable emotions and individual rights will continue to be denied.

At least try to castigate me for what I actually write, Gen, I don't deny any of the science or logic. I don't think that abortions are a good idea and I agree that education is one of the best ways to end the call for them.

But, just as I don't rip you for killing thousands of animals in your life despite the fact that they are just as "alive" as any of us and probably value their lives as much as we value our own, I can't dictate to half the world's population about what they can do with their own bodies.

Your attacks on me personally are hardly in keeping with your generally high level of writing, so I assume that you are very deeply emotionally touched by this issue. So much so, in fact, that you completely overlook the fact that I'm substantially in agreement with you. Just not with the pale one.

 

[GenSeneca]

I agree that education is the way to deal with the problem despite your attack on me personally.

You have lied about me being religious, about my position on the subject, about my stance on abortion bans and your accusations of semantics are simply projection. Feign indigence about my statements about "people like you" if you like, but my statement was accurate, the position which you have delineated is the same one that's been drummed into the heads of a population that feels rather than thinks.

Is a fetus an idividual? Maybe, it depends on how you define it.

With science and established biological definitions. How do you define "it"?

If you have no way to tell one kind of life from another, then you cannot assign value to each one.

DNA

Why you give humans a right that you deny to animals is as yet unstated.

Red Herring: is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.
You mean like animals, who are not "individuals of the genus Homo Sapien"? Such arguments are an exercise in irrelevance.

Introducing the idea of a strawman is simply a way for you to refuse to discuss honest differences in perspective.

You lied about me being religious, it was an attempt at a strawman. Now that your strawman is in flames, you are grasping at... Straws.

So? What makes that document any more viable or believable or having more authority than any other document?

It established the basis of the rights we have as a US citizens. Its from our founding documents that you fallaciously claim a woman has a "RIGHT" to abort her unborn child.

It's simply what you have chosen to accept--which is exactly what religious people do, they accept as FACT or TRUTH what they decide to accept.

Your position is neither substantiated by science or by established biological definitions. You are the one choosing faith over fact.

They are also philosophical terms with great weight in our culture.... If you wish to ignore that common sentiment, then by all means do so.

I did not bring up the term innocent as a reference to philosophical or religious sentiment, only legal. You only wish to highlight the "common sentiment" because it serves your strawman (lie) that I'm religious.

At least try to castigate me for what I actually write, Gen, I don't deny any of the science or logic.

Then you agree that at the point of conception an individual human being is created. That is, after all, what the science and logic has determined on the subject.

I don't think that abortions are a good idea and I agree that education is one of the best ways to end the call for them.

I would educate people on the reality that it is an individual human being that is aborted. What would you propose to educate them on to reduce abortions?

But, just as I don't rip you for killing thousands of animals in your life despite the fact that they are just as "alive" as any of us and probably value their lives as much as we value our own,

Is that a personal attack? I kill thousands of animals? Your emotions are getting the best of you again. My argument has never been about protections for anything that is "Alive", only individual humans. Any attempt to shift the discussion to rights for plants or animals is a red herring.

I can't dictate to half the world's population about what they can do with their own bodies.

I would challenge you on your consistency of that statement but I would rather not go off topic. However, I will remember you have said this and remind you of it anytime you support a position or policy that attempts to dictate what people can do with their own bodies.

Your attacks on me personally are hardly in keeping with your generally high level of writing, so I assume that you are very deeply emotionally touched by this issue.

Not at all emotional, in fact I'm quite dispassionate about the entire subject. If anything, you are overly sensitive to criticism of your positions. You do deny the science and biological definitions regarding the life of an individual human being beginning at conception, otherwise you would not be arguing with Pale or me about the truth of such statements.

So much so, in fact, that you completely overlook the fact that I'm substantially in agreement with you. Just not with the pale one.

Has Pale called for bans on abortion? IDK, maybe he has but I haven't seen his position in that regard.
You are not in substantial (i.e. pertaining to the substance of my position) agreement with me. You admit that abortion is a bad idea, however, you disagree that abortion is a denial of individual rights.

 

[palerider]

Pale, you're beyond hope. You're one of the very ones that gives our side of the issue a bad name because you're not even willing to work with those who agree with you on 95% of the issue. In other words, you're nothing but a disingenuous ideologue who will twist, turn, and contort anything to support your flawed position. You claim to be the end-all, be-all of Biology, but there are tens of thousands of REAL Biologists, in all disciplines who discount your position, and it is THEY who I have based my position upon. You've lost, and you're too prideful to admit it.

Well, enjoy your time standing out there in the middle of the field all by yourself.

You are the victim of a political manipulation and the sad thing is that you don't even know it. Go out there and grab yourself a copy of:

Public Health Service Leaflet no. 1066 and

American College of Gynecology Terminology Bulletin (September 1965)

A group of doctors attempted to arbitrarily redefine when pregnancy began so they could make money on birth control pills. Fortunately, the most respected dictionaries didn't go along with one group of physician's unilataral attempt to redefine a term for monetary reasons.

Questioning my education is no more and no less than an ad hominem as I (unlike you) never expected you to believe anything based on my say so alone. I provided credible sources to substantiate everything I said. As to other biologists accepting that pregnancy begins at implantation, three words. Follow the money.

Your entire argument rests on your claim that the child is not a child until it implants. How about you provide some credible proof of that. How about you provide some credible evidence that a metamorphosis occurs and the "thing" turns into a human being once implantation occurs. You prove that and you have yourself an argument. Fail to prove it and you are just one more unfortunate who has been duped into holding a pro choice stance by some doctors looking to make a buck.

 

[palerider]

The point I was making with the Bible reference was that there is no sanctity of life in our cultural tradition based as it is in the violent Mosaic Law.

Since I am not making arguments that claim any sanctity of life, your point is irrelavent.

 

[palerider]

Pale 40 years... it been 40 frickin' years! It's certainly not that a case just hasn't "had time" to get there.

As I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions, the cases that have challenged roe thus far have focused on a woman's theoretical right, and not on what is being killed when an abortion is performed. Why the legal teams didn't see that attacking a theoretical right was a pointless exercise for all those years, I can't say. What I can say is that now, they are on the right track. Personhood of the unborn is roe's silver bullet and like it or not, a large body of legal precedent establishing the personhood of the unborn now exists.

The reason is simple. There was a reasonable compromise decision made and nothing has changed since the original decision. At that time everybody knew that a fetus was a living organism. Everyone knew it was a separate & unique entity of human origin.

There was never a compromize. The court said that women could terminate pregnancies because unborns were something other than human beings. Can you offer up any proof that they were right?

The compromise is that until viability (could reasonable live on it's own) or even after for life of the mother or severe birth defect or handicap the woman holds the decision.

Again, no compromize. They stated that till the unborn was viable, it was something other than a human being. They acknowledge that human beings have a right to live. Can you offer up any credible evidence that suggests that unborns, at any stage of development, are something other than human beings?

 

[palerider]

Has Pale called for bans on abortion? IDK, maybe he has but I haven't seen his position in that regard.

No, I have not called for complete bans on abortion. If a woman's life or long term health are in imminent danger, she has the same right to defend herself as anyone else.

As to rape and incest, all I ask is for a rational argument in favor of killing a child for the crime of its father and I can be convinced. Logical fallacy, misrepresentation of fact, diversion, and deliberate lies, however, do not represent, nor constitute rational argument.

As you have seen above, even one who generally holds an anti abortion point of view will mindlessly hold to fantasy and fabricate all manner of (for lack of a better term) BS in an attempt to protect an emotional attachment to a particular issue.