Its my body,

[LouderVol]

This is the appeal to emotion you seem to have a trouble recognizing.

My 'stance' is that you should stay out of the healthcare decision of a woman and her provider, no more or less.

And I am fine staying out her OBGYN business. Not interested in the slightest.

As I pointed out the her body her choice = someone else being dead isnt internally consistent. At least throw some real abortion risk her way to make the argument honest.

That baby is a different matter, and our Consitution provides a voice for those without a legal representative. I think it would be consistent to carry that forward to all Americans.

 

[Roustabout]

It would appear as if the whole of your argument is to mire the terminology in the quicksand that suits your argument while dismissing my interpretation of what a embryo or fetus is or isn't. What you've failed to account for is that I really don't care that you find my argument unconvincing or my argument flawed. I've attempted to explain my position, you've rejected it - I can live with that. If you want to stomp your feet and insist that an embryo that isn't viable outside of the womb and hasn't yet achieved sentience is a "human" and deserving of the same 'rights' as you and I, be my guest. We'll simply need to agree to disagree.

As soon as you ground those rights. Oh wait, you can't. You've already conveniently danced passed this. Deserve" According to what? What universal standard are you saying ANY human deserves rights?
I've already addressed this and every objection and your reply is to make some bull **** accusation about terminology. If we are using scientific terms, I'm using them the exact way they are defined.

 

[Roustabout]

The criticism is that you're basing an evaluative conclusion on arbitrary/descriptive premises. If scientists tomorrow decided uniformly that (and this is just an example) what makes something "alive" is the ability to move itself then sperm would be considered alive, and then the moral implications have suddenly changed--all based on a definition.

What is morally good about the ability to grow, undergo metabolism, reproduce, etc? Why is it morally evil to impede these processes? Furthermore, why is it not evil to impede these processes in cows, chickens, spiders, etc?

Your example is bad. Science already considers sperm alive. The tree in my yard is alive.
Plus, you are now trying to diminish the science. Funny, you don't do this on other subjects. The reality of human development is not a decision, but the recognition of what is clearly evident in nature.
Your're just trying to muddy the water.

 

[Roustabout]

This is the appeal to emotion you seem to have a trouble recognizing.

My 'stance' is that you should stay out of the healthcare decision of a woman and her provider, no more or less.

Is murder wrong because its appalling or is it appalling because it's wrong?

 

[Septic]

And I am fine staying out her OBGYN business. Not interested in the slightest.

As I pointed out the her body her choice = someone else being dead isnt internally consistent. At least throw some real abortion risk her way to make the argument honest.

That baby is a different matter, and our Consitution provides a voice for those without a legal representative. I think it would be consistent to carry that forward to all Americans.

Define alive. Viability is one aspect of being alive, sentience arguably is another. Therefore, one has to be alive to be dead. More appeal to emotion... Once the baby is viable and sentient, get back to me - I'll argue that it's murder. Until then we appear to be at an impasse.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Your example is bad. Science already considers sperm alive. The tree in my yard is alive.
Plus, you are now trying to diminish the science. Funny, you don't do this on other subjects. The reality of human development is not a decision, but the recognition of what is clearly evident in nature.
Your're just trying to muddy the water.

It was only an example to show you how how the basis of your argument is subject to change. You've already stated that the judgments of courts are subject to change with the implication that this undercuts the argument. Well, the same is true for your reliance on what scientists agree on. If their agreement (assuming there is broad agreement) changes then that would potentially have implications for your argument.

The reality of human development is similar to that of the development of any other life as well, and yet we don't hold them in the same regard. Why isn't it considered immoral to each chicken or beef? You're impeding a natural process in doing so.

 

[LouderVol]

Define alive. Viability is one aspect of being alive, sentience arguably is another. Therefore, one has to be alive to be dead. More appeal to emotion... Once the baby is viable and sentient, get back to me - I'll argue that it's murder. Until then we appear to be at an impasse.

Alive has nothing to do with long term viability or sentience. Grandpa may die in a month, killing him is still wrong. Someone loses sentience during a 9 month coma they dont lose their rights if there is positive prognosis (right medical term?)

You might tie humanity to it. But I see no logical argument for it in the argument alive/not alive. I leave out dead, because it's clearly not dead or we wouldnt be having this conversation.

And to me arguing it's not human somehow is also purely emotional. It's not non-human. Its human DNA, human cells. And even it's long term human-ness is not in question. At least the Marin made a (horrifying) long term argument, but you cant go that far.

You are only making an emotional argument that at some vague point it's not human/alive/worth protecting but also that at some point it is human/alive/worth protecting. Which again goes back to me saying you arent internally consistent.

If you were completely fine with killing anyone, supporting abortion would be a consistent view to hold.

 

[LouderVol]

Define alive. Viability is one aspect of being alive, sentience arguably is another. Therefore, one has to be alive to be dead. More appeal to emotion... Once the baby is viable and sentient, get back to me - I'll argue that it's murder. Until then we appear to be at an impasse.

To define alive

the human, at least enough cells to constitute the whole, are living and functioning as intended down a path of the entities biological purposes. Vs decomposition which has some living cells. In this case the cells making up this human are developing at least moderately successfully to further stages of life, its biological purpose.

All humans need some form of outside support to stay alive, we dont produce our own food that we then turn into energy. Saying it doesnt have value because it depends specifically on the mother doesnt hold water. I know plenty of basement nerds who couldnt function without their mom. And that is more literal than most recognize.

 

[FLVOL_79]

It was only an example to show you how how the basis of your argument is subject to change. You've already stated that the judgments of courts are subject to change with the implication that this undercuts the argument. Well, the same is true for your reliance on what scientists agree on. If their agreement (assuming there is broad agreement) changes then that would potentially have implications for your argument.

The reality of human development is similar to that of the development of any other life as well, and yet we don't hold them in the same regard. Why isn't it considered immoral to each chicken or beef? You're impeding a natural process in doing so.

Exactly.

The human "race" is just a mix of breeds, like any animal. Some do things different than others. Not all are created equal.

 

[LouderVol]

It was only an example to show you how how the basis of your argument is subject to change. You've already stated that the judgments of courts are subject to change with the implication that this undercuts the argument. Well, the same is true for your reliance on what scientists agree on. If their agreement (assuming there is broad agreement) changes then that would potentially have implications for your argument.

The reality of human development is similar to that of the development of any other life as well, and yet we don't hold them in the same regard. Why isn't it considered immoral to each chicken or beef? You're impeding a natural process in doing so.

Why not carry that argument down to plant life? Why eat lettuce, you are interrupting it's natural process in doing so?

To me it falls back to humans are more important to humans than any animal or other life is. If you need some type of biological argument here being a cannibal leads to some serious health issues that I dont think we get if we ate other animals. There is enough difference there to matter to our bodies.

We also cant cant produce offspring with other animals, no matter how much the folks from Bama try.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Remember folks. Abortion = less democrats. Support it.

 

[Roustabout]

It was only an example to show you how how the basis of your argument is subject to change. You've already stated that the judgments of courts are subject to change with the implication that this undercuts the argument. Well, the same is true for your reliance on what scientists agree on. If their agreement (assuming there is broad agreement) changes then that would potentially have implications for your argument.

The reality of human development is similar to that of the development of any other life as well, and yet we don't hold them in the same regard. Why isn't it considered immoral to each chicken or beef? You're impeding a natural process in doing so.

more attempts to muddy the water, where it’s clear. There’s a little more to support human development than a 5-4 decision. It’s actually dishonest to portray in such a way. You did the same in your critique of natural law. Your couching your concern on something you that you KNOW about natural law and then equivocating.

 

[Roustabout]

Exactly.

The human "race" is just a mix of breeds, like any animal. Some do things different than others. Not all are created equal.

Good to see where this rationale leads!

 

[Roustabout]

Alive has nothing to do with long term viability or sentience. Grandpa may die in a month, killing him is still wrong. Someone loses sentience during a 9 month coma they dont lose their rights if there is positive prognosis (right medical term?)

You might tie humanity to it. But I see no logical argument for it in the argument alive/not alive. I leave out dead, because it's clearly not dead or we wouldnt be having this conversation.

And to me arguing it's not human somehow is also purely emotional. It's not non-human. Its human DNA, human cells. And even it's long term human-ness is not in question. At least the Marin made a (horrifying) long term argument, but you cant go that far.

You are only making an emotional argument that at some vague point it's not human/alive/worth protecting but also that at some point it is human/alive/worth protecting. Which again goes back to me saying you arent internally consistent.

If you were completely fine with killing anyone, supporting abortion would be a consistent view to hold.

Exactly, you can’t get any more emotional than having life determine by whether you’re wanted or not.

Wanted? Valuable.
Unwanted? No valuable.
Somewhere, Hitler is nodding in agreement.

 

[Wafflestomper]

more attempts to muddy the water, where it’s clear. There’s a little more to support human development than a 5-4 decision. It’s actually dishonest to portray in such a way. You did the same in your critique of natural law. Your couching your concern on something you that you KNOW about natural law and then equivocating.

As is typical, your rebuttal lacks any substantive criticism of what was said.

I'm muddying the waters? Okay, how so? Your criticism of rights based on court judgments (or some other legal document) is that it is subject to change. However, if your entire argument hinges upon human life being valuable, and what constitutes human life is based on the definitions of both "human" and "life," and definitions are just common usages of words which are agreed upon (surely you can see where I'm going with this). If you agree human sperm is both human and life when why is it not immoral to destroy it? Why is human life inherently more valuable than other kinds of life? Provide some reasons for your arguments for a change.

I'm guilty of an equivocation? Again, how so? I only provided a common criticism of natural law.

 

[Roustabout]

As is typical, your rebuttal lacks any substantive criticism of what was said.

I'm muddying the waters? Okay, how so? Your criticism of rights based on court judgments (or some other legal document) is that it is subject to change. However, if your entire argument hinges upon human life being valuable, and what constitutes human life is based on the definitions of both "human" and "life," and definitions are just common usages of words which are agreed upon (surely you can see where I'm going with this). If you agree human sperm is both human and life when why is it not immoral to destroy it? Why is human life inherently more valuable than other kinds of life? Provide some reasons for your arguments for a change.

I'm guilty of an equivocation? Again, how so? I only provided a common criticism of natural law.

You’re dishonest. You know exactly what you’re doing and You know that the average person likely won’t catch it. You know that natural can use the term evil without moral connotation. Such as a blind eye or deaf ear. You tried to flip and shift the argument about interfering with the natural order and sneak that past the goalie. Nope!
I’m not going back through my reasons again.

Plenty of examples of bad pro choice arguments and you say nothing. Every time I’ve seen a bad pro life argument I’ve spoken up.

I won’t be responding to you anymore. I should have known better.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Good to see where this rationale leads!

Its science. Race is a social construct to try and separate ourselves from the animals when in reality we are all just different breeds of homo sapiens. Different races evolved due to genetic isolation, just like different breeds in animals.

 

[Electric Orange]

Michigan House Passes Human Microchipping Legislation

 

[Wafflestomper]

Why not carry that argument down to plant life? Why eat lettuce, you are interrupting it's natural process in doing so?

I'm not saying we shouldn't eat lettuce or chicken. This is a criticism for the assertion that interrupting a natural process is wrong in some moral sense.

To me it falls back to humans are more important to humans than any animal or other life is. If you need some type of biological argument here being a cannibal leads to some serious health issues that I dont think we get if we ate other animals. There is enough difference there to matter to our bodies.

We also cant cant produce offspring with other animals, no matter how much the folks from Bama try.

These are just appeals to the consequences of actions. Consequences may provide you with reasons for performing or not performing some actions but they don't establish the kind of absolute moral status which these thinly-veiled theistic arguments parading as secular systems of morality purport to provide.

 

[Wafflestomper]

You’re dishonest. You know exactly what you’re doing and You know that the average person likely won’t catch it. You know that natural can use the term evil without moral connotation. Such as a blind eye or deaf ear. You tried to flip and shift the argument about interfering with the natural order and sneak that past the goalie. Nope!
I’m not going back through my reasons again.

Plenty of examples of bad pro choice arguments and you say nothing. Every time I’ve seen a bad pro life argument I’ve spoken up.

I won’t be responding to you anymore. I should have known better.

Whatever. Don't answer the questions then.

 

[MontyPython]

[Mods... this thread is dedicated to discussion of whether or not the government can/should force people to wear masks. Please keep this post here.]

Anti-maskers, your arguments are duly noted and thrown out the window...

Knox County Board of Health passes face mask mandate

 

[Roustabout]

Its science. Race is a social construct to try and separate ourselves from the animals when in reality we are all just different breeds of homo sapiens. Different races evolved due to genetic isolation, just like different breeds in animals.

So, which race is the most advanced and which is the most primitive?

 

[RikidyBones]

Exactly, you can’t get any more emotional than having life determine by whether you’re wanted or not.

Wanted? Valuable.
Unwanted? No valuable.
Somewhere, Hitler is nodding in agreement.

Somewhere past plantation owners are nodding too. It comes down to them thinking a human life is less valuable. It's sad, really.

 

[RikidyBones]

So, which race is the most advanced and which is the most primitive?

obviously the french are most primitive

 

[Roustabout]

Somewhere past plantation owners are nodding too. It comes down to them thinking a human life is less valuable. It's sad, really.

Good point