Abortion Rights

[rjd970]

Explain. You make the statement that the source of human rights is the belief that humans have objective value yet you haven't provided the source of this objective value.

I’ll save you the suspense. It’s a supernatural source and off to the races we go about whether God exists and this thread is no longer about abortion rights which is exactly what he wants at this point.

 

[Roustabout]

Explain. You make the statement that the source of human rights is the belief that humans have objective value yet you haven't provided the source of this objective value.

I didn't say belief establishes objective value. God would be the source. I said I have consistent reasons to build a case for human rights.

It's inconsequential to this line of discussion. There are a couple of threads we can discuss this in. If you want to answer how you ground and source human rights as it relates to abortion then I'm all ears.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

I didn't say belief establishes objective value. God would be the source. I said I have consistent reasons to build a case for human rights.

It's inconsequential to this line of discussion. There are a couple of threads we can discuss this in. If you want to answer how you ground and source human rights as it relates to abortion then I'm all ears.

That is why I don't see the sense in discussing the source of human rights with you. Your god answer is every bit as arbitrary as my belief that the rights have been established through centuries of human interactions and their innate desire to survive.

 

[rjd970]

I think it's you that's missing me.
The DNA argument your making is a conflation. The reality is that regardless of our tech advances the reality of a fertilized egg in the womb is where we get new humans. The ability to combine a sperm and egg in the lab doesn't change that.

You've also categorized the value of life and it's potential by its ability to fit your criteria of feeling pain. In reality, a newly formed zygote has the same future potential as a 9 month old fetus. A zygote holds all the potential of personhood and is in FACT on its course for such. To knowingly intervene to terminate this is to destroy (murder) this reality.

You are also ignoring that there are those that would argue that a 3 month old fetus, a 6 month, 9 month, are also NOT persons. It's telling that you aren't as passionate about debating with them. Heck, there are even those that think a newborn is not a person.

Was being a blastocyst part of your human develooment and current personhood?

You brought up potential. DNA has potential. Just because you think that potential to personhood only applies naturally, at the point of fertilization, doesn’t make it so.

Is knowingly intervening by putting on a condom not “murdering” potential?

Show me somebody on here refusing to answer the personhood question and arguing for late term abortion I’ll will argue with equal zeal.

My development to personhood started before a blastocyst. At some point i bacame a person. And that wasn’t at fertilization.

 

[Roustabout]

I’ll save you the suspense. It’s a supernatural source and off to the races we go about whether God exists and this thread is no longer about abortion rights which is exactly what he wants at this point.

You're lying about what I want and I don't appreciate it. Here's what I want. The thread is title abortion RIGHTS. You and others have stated personhood warrants human rights. And at the core of this argument is that the mothers has rights (to terminate her pregnancy), the unborn do not. That is a positive claim that DEMANDS a defense. Despite the deceptive attempt by PKT to shift the burden, and your lap dog reaction to it. "Uh, this is what a meant to say."

I've asked, repeatedly, for anyone to ground and source these rights and you've guys have thrown out more rabbit trails, and diversions by trying to take the focus off what is being asked of you and trying to put the focus on me. Hell, Ape was either to stupid or drunk to realize what he actually said in his post.

My position has been routinely mischaracterized and wrongly assumed. And despite the fact that i typed it out, it continues. I'm sure there's plenty of "abortion is wrong cause the Bible says so," people you can push around and make yourself feel intellectially superior to. But, that isn't what I'm presenting. So, stop avoiding the question by trying to question my motives.


Your last post is indicative of this avoidance tactic. "I'll tell ya what Roust is up to.....blah, blah."
Then you guys can pat each other on the back and claim victory.

Answer the question.

 

[Roustabout]

You brought up potential. DNA has potential. Just because you think that potential to personhood only applies naturally, at the point of fertilization, doesn’t make it so.

Is knowingly intervening by putting on a condom not “murdering” potential?

Show me somebody on here refusing to answer the personhood question and arguing for late term abortion I’ll will argue with equal zeal.

My development to personhood started before a blastocyst. At some point i bacame a person. And that wasn’t at fertilization.

You are desperately reaching. You sound like Wafflestomper now and that isn't a good look.

I'll give you some examples to show you how ridiculous your being.

We are taking about pregnancy. This isn't some ambiguous event. So, stop trying to make it so.

When a woman takes a pregnancy test what is it announcing?
She tells her friends she's having a A. Zygote
B. Blastocyst
C. Baby (person)

An abortion is to prevent a what from being born.
A. Zygote
B. Blastocyst
C. Baby (person)

Conception is a nexus event and trying to talk about DNA and this (every sperm is sacred) other line you are going down is a sad and pathetic attempt to muddy the water. What it shows is you are incapable of having an honest discussion.

 

[Roustabout]

That is why I don't see the sense in discussing the source of human rights with you. Your god answer is every bit as arbitrary as my belief that the rights have been established through centuries of human interactions and their innate desire to survive.

Prejudicial.
I'm not asking you to accept my view.
And, most importantly, my position on abortion is not a rights issue, no more than my position on murder is a rights issue.

The pro choice position is saying the mother has rights and the unborn do not. Yes or no?

 

[rjd970]

You're lying about what I want and I don't appreciate it. Here's what I want. The thread is title abortion RIGHTS. You and others have stated personhood warrants human rights. And at the core of this argument is that the mothers has rights (to terminate her pregnancy), the unborn do not. That is a positive claim that DEMANDS a defense. Despite the deceptive attempt by PKT to shift the burden, and your lap dog reaction to it. "Uh, this is what a meant to say."

I've asked, repeatedly, for anyone to ground and source these rights and you've guys have thrown out more rabbit trails, and diversions by trying to take the focus off what is being asked of you and trying to put the focus on me. Hell, Ape was either to stupid or drunk to realize what he actually said in his post.

My position has been routinely mischaracterized and wrongly assumed. And despite the fact that i typed it out, it continues. I'm sure there's plenty of "abortion is wrong cause the Bible says so," people you can push around and make yourself feel intellectially superior to. But, that isn't what I'm presenting. So, stop avoiding the question by trying to question my motives.


Your last post is indicative of this avoidance tactic. "I'll tell ya what Roust is up to.....blah, blah."
Then you guys can pat each other on the back and claim victory.

Answer the question.

Define personhood and I will gladly play along.

 

[Roustabout]

Define personhood and I will gladly play along.

You're avoiding again.
Personhood as PKT pointed out is an ambiguous term. You're attempting to force me to accept your assumptions, which are loaded in your question.

Not happening. I've laid out my views in more detail and explanation than any of you have.

I've already asked the rights question MULTIPLE times. Either answer or we're done.

 

[Roustabout]

Don't get pregnant a blastocyst is a lot of responsibility.

 

[rjd970]

You're avoiding again.
Personhood as PKT pointed out is an ambiguous term. You're attempting to force me to accept your assumptions, which are loaded in your question.

Not happening. I've laid out my views in more detail and explanation than any of you have.

I've already asked the rights question MULTIPLE times. Either answer or we're done.

We’re done.

 

[Roustabout]

We’re done.

I knew that a LONG time ago.

"Maybe this will resonate, what is being destroyed With the morning after pill, a person, or a POTENTIAL person? I doubt I get an answer on that"

Keep doubting.
What is being destroyed when the little girl is murdered?
Her potential. Her future reality.
"She had her whole life ahead of her."

 

[apevol]

i don't think you're smart enough to realize what you just said.

But, i can guarantee you none of them saw where i was going with my last in depth post.

😂

 

[Wafflestomper]

You're attempting to force me to accept your assumptions, which are loaded in your question.

Sounds like someone else arguing here. Hmm.

What's the objective basis for your definition of when life begins? Oh, you don't have one? Then your view is arbitrary by your own standard.

 

[luthervol]

When a woman takes a pregnancy test what is it announcing?
She tells her friends she's having a A. Zygote
B. Blastocyst
C. Baby (person)

An abortion is to prevent a what from being born.
A. Zygote
B. Blastocyst
C. Baby (person)

She tells her friends "I'm pregnant, I'm GOING to have a baby." She does not tell her friends "I have a baby."

Every time I hear, see, or have a debate on abortion I become more thoroughly convinced that "Roe v. Wade" was a brilliant decision.

 

[tumscalcium]

She tells her friends "I'm pregnant, I'm GOING to have a baby." She does not tell her friends "I have a baby."

Every time I hear, see, or have a debate on abortion I become more thoroughly convinced that "Roe v. Wade" was a brilliant decision.

Of course it’s brilliant. It helps to drastically reduce the liberal population. The problem is that not enough liberals are aborted.

 

[Roustabout]

Sounds like someone else arguing here. Hmm.

What's the objective basis for your definition of when life begins? Oh, you don't have one? Then your view is arbitrary by your own standard.

You again?

Asked and answered.

 

[Wafflestomper]

You again?

Asked and answered.

"Scientific consensus" is now considered objective? That has all kinds of implications that I think you'll be uncomfortable with.

 

[Roustabout]

She tells her friends "I'm pregnant, I'm GOING to have a baby." She does not tell her friends "I have a baby."

Every time I hear, see, or have a debate on abortion I become more thoroughly convinced that "Roe v. Wade" was a brilliant decision.

Not sure how you think this supports your position.

I suggest you look at the later testimony of the woman who was the 'Roe' in this case.

 

[Roustabout]

"Scientific consensus" is now considered objective? That has all kinds of implications that I think you'll be uncomfortable with.

No. We have several billion case studies walking around the earth right now. You're one of them knucklehead.

Consensus is one facet of it. Facts. Testable, repeatable, observable case studies.

Consensus is only an ad populum if it is built off philosophical leanings as opposed to the above.

Nice try though. Straining a gnat to swallow a camel.

 

[luthervol]

Of course it’s brilliant. It helps to drastically reduce the liberal population. The problem is that not enough liberals are aborted.

Well, if you're a religious man that believes life begins at conception, that all human life has a soul, and that there is a heaven and hell.......

 

[Wafflestomper]

No. We have several billion case studies walking around the earth right now. You're one of them knucklehead.

Consensus is one facet of it. Facts. Testable, repeatable, observable case studies.

Consensus is only an ad populum if it is built off philosophical leanings as opposed to the above.

Nice try though. Straining a gnat to swallow a camel.

Objective truths aren't established based upon scientific tests. The end result of the scientific method only strengthens or weakens the probablility that a given hypothesis is correct.

The definition of what is living and what is not is derived in the same way that some define value--mutual agreement. In the case for life, people have merely agreed upon characteristics which differentiate life from non-life.

There is no objective truth value to a definition; thus, you're guilty of argument ad populum and/or special pleading.

 

[Roustabout]

Objective truths aren't established based upon scientific tests. The end result of the scientific method only strengthens or weakens the probablility that a given hypothesis is correct.

The definition of what is living and what is not is derived in the same way that some define value--mutual agreement. In the case for life, people have merely agreed upon characteristics which differentiate life from non-life.

There is no objective truth value to a definition; thus, you're guilty of argument ad populum and/or special pleading.

Now where did I say that? Already addressed the ad populum. Apparently you are guilty of either willful ignorance or illiteracy.
Truth "is," it's just how we discover it. Are you wanting to have a discussion on epistemology or are you arguing that the scientific method is worthless in discovering truth in this area?

You really have no idea how badly this is working out for you. Please continue.

 

[Roustabout]

I want to expand on what Wafflestomper is saying because it is 1) terribly dishonest and 2) setting the stage to undermine anything he has to say.

First, it would be better said that objective truths aren't established period. They just are. If a truth could be established, then it could likewise be disestablished. It's like saying the earth wasn't orbiting the sun UNTIL we established it.

Earlier in the discussion he was arguing about what is KNOWN about conception. My reference to consensus was not an argument on how truth is established, but the fact that he is debating with the wrong people. His case would then be against scientific discovery and conclusions on the the subject. I've explained this, yet he is still dishonestly trying to accuse me of ad-populum. I'm guessing, despite this further explanation and clear statement that consensus DOES NOT establish truth, he will continue to beat this horse. Anyone want to take bets?

The issue here is that the person who is poorly trained in logic will incorrectly recognize fallacies. I'll give you two sentences and show you exactly what I'm talking about.

-The scientific community agrees that the earth orbits the sun.

-The majority of scientist are atheists therefore theism is false.

Can you figure out which one is an ad populum fallacy?

The first statement is not an attempt to establish truth, but to communicate views based on scientific facts in objective reality. It's not a philosophical claim that fails to connect the facts and observations to the agreement or consensus.

The second statement fails in this regard and is therefore an ad-populum fallacy.

Here are just few biological definitions of conception.

Biologically, conception is the moment when a sperm cell from a male breaches the ovum, or egg, from a female. The process is also known as fertilization and is the initial stage of development for human growth.

Princeton: "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).

What WS has resorted to is not an argument on the facts, but a weak and ridiculous philosophical argument on epistemology. He references 'definitions' and is attempting to muddy the water by saying definitions are just agreement, as opposed to also being a method of identifying and describing objective truth. Much like in math, we have numbers. I can type the token "4" and you know what it represents. The symbol we use isn't objective truth, but an assigned token, which corresponds to something in objective reality. In this case it could be 4 Superbowl tickets (just so you understand that I'm not making a Platonian argument that numbers themselves exist).

The problem, which WS apparently fails to see, is he is on a path to undermine any knowledge or our ability to know anything is objectively so. And since this is where he is heading, he has NO reason to disagree, since his own opinion and observation is also subject to this view. It's a self-defeating position. Untenable.

So, if you 'liked' his post, you really show yourself to be most confused and desperate. You would have NO REASON to agree or disagree with anything. My position would be just another position, no better, worse, true, false, than someone who supported abortion or even infanticide.

 

[Wafflestomper]

I want to expand on what Wafflestomper is saying because it is 1) terribly dishonest and 2) setting the stage to undermine anything he has to say.

First, it would be better said that objective truths aren't established period. They just are. If a truth could be established, then it could likewise be disestablished. It's like saying the earth wasn't orbiting the sun UNTIL we established it.

Earlier in the discussion he was arguing about what is KNOWN about conception. My reference to consensus was not an argument on how truth is established, but the fact that he is debating with the wrong people. His case would then be against scientific discovery and conclusions on the the subject. I've explained this, yet he is still dishonestly trying to accuse me of ad-populum. I'm guessing, despite this further explanation and clear statement that consensus DOES NOT establish truth, he will continue to beat this horse. Anyone want to take bets?

The issue here is that the person who is poorly trained in logic will incorrectly recognize fallacies. I'll give you two sentences and show you exactly what I'm talking about.

-The scientific community agrees that the earth orbits the sun.

-The majority of scientist are atheists therefore theism is false.

Can you figure out which one is an ad populum fallacy?

The first statement is not an attempt to establish truth, but to communicate views based on scientific facts in objective reality. It's not a philosophical claim that fails to connect the facts and observations to the agreement or consensus.

The second statement fails in this regard and is therefore an ad-populum fallacy.

Here are just few biological definitions of conception.




What WS has resorted to is not an argument on the facts, but a weak and ridiculous philosophical argument on epistemology. He references 'definitions' and is attempting to muddy the water by saying definitions are just agreement, as opposed to also being a method of identifying and describing objective truth. Much like in math, we have numbers. I can type the token "4" and you know what it represents. The symbol we use isn't objective truth, but an assigned token, which corresponds to something in objective reality. In this case it could be 4 Superbowl tickets (just so you understand that I'm not making a Platonian argument that numbers themselves exist).

The problem, which WS apparently fails to see, is he is on a path to undermine any knowledge or our ability to know anything is objectively so. And since this is where he is heading, he has NO reason to disagree, since his own opinion and observation is also subject to this view. It's a self-defeating position. Untenable.

So, if you 'liked' his post, you really show yourself to be most confused and desperate. You would have NO REASON to agree or disagree with anything. My position would be just another position, no better, worse, true, false, than someone who supported abortion or even infanticide.

Lol you're so insecure.