Abortion

[IBDaMann]

My definition of a living human encompasses [non-existent] stages of human development [that strangely precede the existence of the human in question, e.g.] human sperms and eggs.

FTFY. This has already been addressed many times, you have never refuted it, you have simply rejected biology, human physiology and logic.

 

[Scott]

As anyone can see from the nested quotes, I went all the way back to your original question, way back in post #415. Your question reminds me of the prosecutor who asked a man if he'd stopped beating his wife. If he says yes, it implies he was doing it before. If he says no, it implies he's still beating her. There is no room in a yes or no answer to say "I never beat my wife!".

Nope. You are deliberately mischaracterizing my easy, straightforward question as a question with an embedded fallacy.

I suspect we won't come to an agreement on this.

To first characterize my question as such, you need to identify said embedded fallacy

I did, in the very post you were responding to. For the audience, that post is post #1075.

 

[Scott]

No, I chose that article to highlight all the deaths of children that occur -after- they are born.

... and I am pointing out all the deaths that you are conveniently ignoring.

If the deaths you're referring to are aborted embryos and fetuses, I'm not ignoring them- this entire thread is about abortions. I was trying to point out that not allowing a pregnant female to abort may be doing her and her offspring no favours in the long run. That's why I linked to the article on children dying soon -after- they are born, before the age of 15 to be precise. For the audience, the article is here:

Child and Infant Mortality

Child mortality remains one of the world’s largest problems and is a painful reminder of work yet to be done. With global data on where, when, and how child deaths occur, we can accelerate efforts to prevent them.

ourworldindata.org

 

[Scott]

While it's true that that the main focus of this discussion is about human abortions,

Nope. It is not true.

I suspect we won't come to an agreement here.

While it's true that that the main focus of this discussion is about human abortions, humans are a type of animal, at least scientifically speaking:

Are humans actually an animal? | Wyzant Ask An Expert

Are humans actually an animal?

www.wyzant.com

Nope. Humans are a type of animal in a particular arbitrary and non-binding taxonomy. In other taxonomies, for example, mankind is not an animal, and has been given dominion over all animals.

Please, elaborate in these "other taxonomies".

 

[Scott]

While it's true that that the main focus of this discussion is about human abortions, humans are a type of animal, at least scientifically speaking:

Are humans actually an animal? | Wyzant Ask An Expert

Are humans actually an animal?

www.wyzant.com

In this case, I think that talking about other animals is quite important, because of the fact that many animals have heartbeats and yet humans don't seem nearly as concerned about them regardless of their level of intelligence.

So now that we have resolved that we are not nearly as concerned about animals [snip]

Most people accept that humans are animals. There's no doubt that humans aren't the only ones with heartbeats. Why should we care so much about human heartbeats? The only thing I find distinguishes humans from most other animals is intelligence, not heartbeats.

 

[Scott]

While it's true that that the main focus of this discussion is about human abortions, humans are a type of animal, at least scientifically speaking:

Are humans actually an animal? | Wyzant Ask An Expert

Are humans actually an animal?

www.wyzant.com

In this case, I think that talking about other animals is quite important, because of the fact that many animals have heartbeats and yet humans don't seem nearly as concerned about them regardless of their level of intelligence. Why is that? I think it's a clear case of speciesm,

Yes, yes, yes, ... you caught me. I am a specieist. I don't care about animals, only about living humans.

As mentioned previously, humans -are- animals. As to living humans, I define them as starting at the gamete level- even you don't care so much about human sperms and eggs. Again, I reiterate that the only meaningful distinction between human animals and other animals is the fact that humans are fairly intelligent. There are some animals that rival human intelligence though, especially in the early stages of human development- certainly in stages before a living human is born.

 

[Scott]

While it's true that that the main focus of this discussion is about human abortions, humans are a type of animal, at least scientifically speaking:

Are humans actually an animal? | Wyzant Ask An Expert

Are humans actually an animal?

www.wyzant.com

In this case, I think that talking about other animals is quite important, because of the fact that many animals have heartbeats and yet humans don't seem nearly as concerned about them regardless of their level of intelligence. Why is that? I think it's a clear case of speciesm, which definitely has certain similarities to racism.

You're a leftist; everything is RACISM! to a leftist.

As I've stated many times, I'm more of a political hybrid, going left on some issues and right on others. I certainly don't think that "everything is racism". That being said, I definitely think that racism and speciesism share some similar traits. Wikipedia points out that 2 studies have suggested there is some crossover between speciesm and racism as well:
**
Speciesism (/ˈspiːʃiːˌzɪzəm, -siːˌzɪz-/) is a term used in philosophy regarding the treatment of individuals of different species. The term has several different definitions. Some specifically define speciesism as discrimination or unjustified treatment based on an individual's species membership, while others define it as differential treatment without regard to whether the treatment is justified or not. Richard D. Ryder, who coined the term, defined it as "a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species". Speciesism results in the belief that humans have the right to use non-human animals in exploitative ways which is pervasive in the modern society. Studies from 2015 and 2019 suggest that people who support animal exploitation also tend to have intersectional bias that encapsulates and endorses racist, sexist, and other prejudicial views, which furthers the beliefs in human supremacy and group dominance to justify systems of inequality and oppression.
**

Source:

Speciesism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scott]

I can accept that you have certain beliefs regarding humans, for instance that God has given humans the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Personally, I recognize those lines from the U.S. constitution.

It's from the US Declaration of Independence.

So it is, thanks for pointing that out.

I can accept that you have certain beliefs regarding humans, for instance that God has given humans the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Personally, I recognize those lines from the U.S. constitution. It's fine writing, it's just that it doesn't always happen in real life. But perhaps more important to this discussion, there's no logical reason to appraise human life above other forms of life just because of our DNA. Now, one could argue that, once developed past a certain stage of development, human life becomes one of the most intelligent life forms on earth, and I'd agree with that- but that stage of development happens -after- humans are born, not before.

There's no logical reason to appraise your favorite color above other colors.

So, we reach the point where the rubber meets the road. You advocate for the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.

No, I advocate for people to have the right to remove certain living humans from their bodies, whether that be by jerking off or removal of an embryo or fetus. These things result in the deaths of said living humans. The good news is that creating -more- living humans at these stages of development is relatively easy. I think some might even agree that the last thing we would want is to damage the truly awesome abilities of a fertile female. Not only can they have multiple fertilized eggs in their lifetime, they can also bring their pregnancies to term if they so desire, and many females -do- so desire. The last thing any reasonable person would want is for that wonderful machinery to be damaged, by having an illegal abortion, for instance. And yet that's the type of thing that happens when abortions aren't legally allowed to happen.

 

[IBDaMann]

I suspect we won't come to an agreement on this.

Of course not. You simply "disagree" with any objective truth I present.

I did, in the very post you were responding to.

Nope. You could have stated it right here, but you have moved into your next stage of EVASION by pretending your wondrous refutations actually exist in other posts that you know no one will check.

You have never refuted anything. You simply "disagree" on matters that are not subjective.

 

[IBDaMann]

If the deaths you're referring to are aborted embryos and fetuses, I'm not ignoring them- this entire thread is about abortions.

You are ignoring all the aborted embryos and fetuses on this point in a thread in which you should be focusing on all the aborted embryos and fetuses,

I was trying to point out that not allowing a pregnant female to abort may be doing her and her offspring no favours in the long run.

We have already addressed how stupid it is to pretend that killing a child somehow does him a favor. This is where you sulk, curl your lower lip and pout "we're going to have to agree to disagree."

You try to justify American mothers killing their own children for personal convenience by claiming that African mothers are doing favors for their children by killing them.

Have I mentioned that your killing supremacy position is quite shitty?

 

[IBDaMann]

I suspect we won't come to an agreement here.

Get off your EVASIVE tangent and answer the questions you've been asked.

Please, elaborate in these "other taxonomies".

Christians, for example, don't view humans as animals, but as being put in charge of all the animals.

 

[IBDaMann]

Most people accept that humans are animals.

Your use of the word "accept" renders your statement false. Change it to "consider".

There's no doubt that humans aren't the only ones with heartbeats.

Nice random statement.

You are on tap to provide an example of something that has a heartbeat that is not alive. I stated that wherever there is a heartbeat, there is life. You disagreed. Give me an example.

Remember, you are desperately quibbling over the words "living" and "human", and you are trying to defeat the following:

Heartbeat = Life / Living
Human DNA = Human
Killing = the act of removing life from something living.

You have yet to make a valid argument for your killing supremacy position, you have not refuted and arguments against your killing supremacy position, and you have not answered the list of questions posed to you about your killing supremacy position.

 

[IBDaMann]

As mentioned previously, humans -are- animals.

I'm ignoring this time-wasting EVASION.

 

[IBDaMann]

So it is, thanks for pointing that out.

I'm here to help.

No, I advocate for people to have the right to remove certain living humans from their bodies,

Nope.

 

[gfm7175]

Sure, but as a society most people are in agreement that this is fair. The situation is different when it comes to forcing pregnant females to grow fetuses.

How, exactly, is the citation being forced upon me? I made the choice to drive 40mph in a 25mph zone instead of driving 25mph. How, exactly, is my choice to "gamble re: a cop being there or not" "being forced to receive a citation"?

I see that someone has done such a picture at this point.

Yes, the meme-master (IBDaMann) pulled through for me! I greatly appreciate his effort in making it. It turned out much like I envisioned it.

You're missing the point though- most people know that having unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy.

... yet they CHOOSE to GAMBLE anyway... and then when they LOSE the gamble, instead of rightfully "accepting the results", they enter into Mr. Rogers "Land of Make Believe" and pretend that "a random fetus appeared!" "suddenly", "unexpectedly", at "absolutely no fault of their own", ina desperate attempt to retain killing supremacy over the innocent unborn child who is very clearly, unambiguously, and undeniably a living human.

The issue is whether females should be forced to grow embryos and fetuses inside them. I think that forcing them to do so amounts to slavery.

Nope. The issue is whether females (and the males who they had sex with) should "reap what they sow" regarding their gambling loss. If you went to Vegas and gambled some money on the blackjack tables and LOST, then you do NOT "get a mulligan". Killing another living human does not somehow reverse your gambling loss either.

 

[gfm7175]

If the deaths you're referring to are aborted embryos and fetuses, I'm not ignoring them- this entire thread is about abortions. I was trying to point out that not allowing a pregnant female to abort may be doing her and her offspring no favours in the long run.

... except for the favor of a chance of living a long life (instead of never even making it out of his mother's womb). Heck, even making it a handful of years is better than not even making it to birth.

 

[gfm7175]

Christians, for example, don't view humans as animals, but as being put in charge of all the animals.

@Scott -- Genesis 1:26-28 [quoted below from the KJV] are (at least one of) the verses of The Bible that set up the viewpoint of what God created humans to be (as opposed to the rest of God's creation).

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

 

[Yakuda]

So it is, thanks for pointing that out.



No, I advocate for people to have the right to remove certain living humans from their bodies, whether that be by jerking off or removal of an embryo or fetus. These things result in the deaths of said living humans. The good news is that creating -more- living humans at these stages of development is relatively easy. I think some might even agree that the last thing we would want is to damage the truly awesome abilities of a fertile female. Not only can they have multiple fertilized eggs in their lifetime, they can also bring their pregnancies to term if they so desire, and many females -do- so desire. The last thing any reasonable person would want is for that wonderful machinery to be damaged, by having an illegal abortion, for instance. And yet that's the type of thing that happens when abortions aren't legally allowed to happen.

They don't "remove" then they kill them. What the hell's wrong with you?