A question for anti-choicers

Atheistmark said:
I'm not sure I've ever seen an anti-choice scientist. Almost all scientists are Democrats and liberals, ergo, almost all are pro-choice. If you say that science supports the notion that abortion is murder, you are merely ignorant.

As I've said before, saying that abortion is murder is only consistent under spiritual or speciest values. Are you saying its also inconsistent under the value system I find most rationally appealing, that of cognitive activity?
Click to expand...

give me a fucking break dude....what kind of twisted logic is this? you obviously have to use illogical reasoning that because allegedly almost all scientists are dems, that they therefore must almost all support pro choice....

i didn't say science supports the notion that abortion is murder, i said what I HAVE FOUND AND WHAT SF HAVE FOUND states that life begins at conception.....i asked you for scientist who say this is not true....you can't provide any so you use the most tortured logic i've seen in a while....

and no, if indeed a human life personhood begins at conception, then it should be murder, for you are taking a human life and under all murder statutes, that is an element for murder.....when human life begins is capable of being answered by science, if science can't do it, then science fails big time
 
Onceler said:
Well, careful what you wish for. You may be right; at the very least, I can see Roe being overturned, at which point individual states will make the call.

I think if that happens, there will be tremendous backlash against the right in general, and it will certainly dim electoral prospects for many Republicans for years.

Beyond that, I think it will always be legal in many states, and people will simply travel to those states to get abortions.
Click to expand...
the last forty years has been a backlash against the left because of Roe v Wade.....
 
Yurt said:
give me a fucking break dude....what kind of twisted logic is this? you obviously have to use illogical reasoning that because allegedly almost all scientists are dems, that they therefore must almost all support pro choice....

i didn't say science supports the notion that abortion is murder, i said what I HAVE FOUND AND WHAT SF HAVE FOUND states that life begins at conception.....i asked you for scientist who say this is not true....you can't provide any so you use the most tortured logic i've seen in a while....

and no, if indeed a human life personhood begins at conception, then it should be murder, for you are taking a human life and under all murder statutes, that is an element for murder.....when human life begins is capable of being answered by science, if science can't do it, then science fails big time
Click to expand...

Only under your value system. I don't think it's logically consistent to keep a clump of cells alive and slaughter a cow that has millions of times more cognitive activity than it; and is able to feel pain.
 
Onceler said:
There is no sentience, no viability, no nervous system or brain development, no consciousness - and no, this isn't the same as someone in a coma.

There are other factors at work, particularly in the debate about "personhood"; no - a clump of cells does NOT meet many of the standards that are involved in that discussion.
Click to expand...

actually, if it is human life, then all of that is developing, just as it continues to develop outside of the womb, imo
 
"when human life begins is capable of being answered by science, if science can't do it, then science fails big time "

Science isn't the end-all in any discussion. Science might tell us that we're killing a lake and should immediately shut down every industry that borders the lake. But other considerations come into play - the jobs & livelihoods of the workers in those industries, for one. We might make a more informed decision - using science, social concerns & economic considerations - to try to clean up industry practices to a degree, but still maintain the industries themselves.

Science offers a very cookie-cutter, gene-level definition of "life." The overall discussion is much more complex, and involves factors that require more consideration...
 
Atheistmark said:
Only under your value system. I don't think it's logically consistent to keep a clump of cells alive and slaughter a cow that has millions of times more cognitive activity than it; and is able to feel pain.
Click to expand...

?

what the F are you talking about? are you a vegan? i don't believe you are, so i guess if someone is in a deep coma, then you should be able to kill them because a cow has more cognitive activity than that....

a cow and a human are the same thing, a cow life is not ever the same thing as a human life....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the last forty years has been a backlash against the left because of Roe v Wade.....
Click to expand...

Exactly. The 30-30-40 rule applies. 30% are strongly against abortion, 30% are strongly for it, and 40% lay somewhere in the middle. Of that group, most would prefer it legal, with limitations to a certain degree, and discouraged. If you outlaw it completely, you alienate that group.
 
Onceler said:
"when human life begins is capable of being answered by science, if science can't do it, then science fails big time "

Science isn't the end-all in any discussion. Science might tell us that we're killing a lake and should immediately shut down every industry that borders the lake. But other considerations come into play - the jobs & livelihoods of the workers in those industries, for one. We might make a more informed decision - using science, social concerns & economic considerations - to try to clean up industry practices to a degree, but still maintain the industries themselves.

Science offers a very cookie-cutter, gene-level definition of "life." The overall discussion is much more complex, and involves factors that require more consideration...
Click to expand...

fair enough....but i really am not sure it is the difficult to determine when human life begins if it is a "fact" that life begins at conception....if it is life, then it seems to me that the life is human. it is just in the very early stages.
 
Onceler said:
I don't have to "admit" anything, and I don't have to agree that it's a human being because you say it is.

If I look at something microscopic in a petri dish - no, I will not agree that it's a "human being."

An acorn ain't a tree. A baby is not an adult. A zygote is not a baby.
Click to expand...

first of all, you are the one that insists the zygote must be something more than simply living and human....thus it is incumbent upon YOU to define that standard it must attain.....if you can't, it isn't a valid standard....

second, I have responded to the "acorn isn't a tree" a half dozen times already and nobody admits that it is a specious argument......either respond to it or abandon it.....an acorn and a tree are both oak....a zygote, a baby and an adult are all human.....
 
Onceler said:
There is no sentience, no viability, no nervous system or brain development, no consciousness -
Click to expand...

????...that is not scientifically accurate....

There are other factors at work, particularly in the debate about "personhood"; no - a clump of cells does NOT meet many of the standards that are involved in that discussion.
Click to expand...
so identify the other factors.....what are the standards?....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
first of all, you are the one that insists the zygote must be something more than simply living and human....thus it is incumbent upon YOU to define that standard it must attain.....if you can't, it isn't a valid standard....

second, I have responded to the "acorn isn't a tree" a half dozen times already and nobody admits that it is a specious argument......either respond to it or abandon it.....an acorn and a tree are both oak....a zygote, a baby and an adult are all human.....
Click to expand...

I never argued that a zygote isn't human; it is. A zygote is not a baby or an adult, just as an acorn isn't a tree.

The acorn analogy is imperfect, but it isn't a bad one. It has all of the genetic plans for a tree, and is a "life," but it is most definitely not a tree.
 
Atheistmark said:
You are both a spiritualist and a speciesest. You embrace irrational value systems on all fronts, though.
Click to expand...

I approach the issue from a scientific and legal basis....there is no non-arbitrary basis upon which to deny the unborn the same rights available to a birthed child.....therefore the attempt to deprive them of equal protection under the law violates the constitution.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I approach the issue from a scientific and legal basis....there is no non-arbitrary basis upon which to deny the unborn the same rights available to a birthed child.....therefore the attempt to deprive them of equal protection under the law violates the constitution.....
Click to expand...

You're conveniently ignoring the other half of the equation with regard to rights. You know...the mother?
 
Onceler said:
Exactly. The 30-30-40 rule applies. 30% are strongly against abortion, 30% are strongly for it, and 40% lay somewhere in the middle. Of that group, most would prefer it legal, with limitations to a certain degree, and discouraged. If you outlaw it completely, you alienate that group.
Click to expand...

30% realize it's wrong, 30% prefer to kill them, and 40% are clueless.....I really don't care if I alienate people who like to kill children....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
30% realize it's wrong, 30% prefer to kill them, and 40% are clueless.....I really don't care if I alienate people who like to kill children....
Click to expand...

If you really wanted to be taken seriously in this or any discussion, you wouldn't spew BS like that.

Talk about a credibility nosedive. Next?
 
Onceler said:
just as an acorn isn't a tree.

The acorn analogy is imperfect, but it isn't a bad one. It has all of the genetic plans for a tree, and is a "life," but it is most definitely not a tree.
Click to expand...

of course it's a bad one....it doesn't need to be "tree", any more than a zygote needs to be "adult"......are you incapable of understanding that or do you just not give a shit....
 
Yurt said:
?

what the F are you talking about? are you a vegan? i don't believe you are, so i guess if someone is in a deep coma, then you should be able to kill them because a cow has more cognitive activity than that....

a cow and a human are the same thing, a cow life is not ever the same thing as a human life....
Click to expand...

Alright, I will further clarify by saying "cognitive ability".

If a there was a cow with as much intelligence as a human, that we could talk to, would it be logically consistent to slaughter it and keep alive a clump of cells? A cow and a human aren't the same thing because of the difference in their cognitive ability.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top