Court Clears Way for Egg Rights Showdown

and you also claim it doesn't have rights cuz it's not a person. That's circular. Stop mentally queefing all over the board.
That's exactly right: it is not a person and therefor does not have rights. That is not circular.

(A) Only persons have rights
(B) A 10 week fetus is not yet a person

Given both (A) and (B) we can conclude (C), that the 10 week old fetus does not have rights.

What is the fallacy you find in that? I do not conclude that the fetus is not a person because it has no rights. That would indeed be circular. I conclude that the fetus is not a person pretty much by looking at it, if you must know.
 
That's exactly right: it is not a person and therefor does not have rights. That is not circular.

(A) Only persons have rights
(B) A 10 week fetus is not yet a person

Given both (A) and (B) we can conclude (C), that the 10 week old fetus does not have rights.

What is the fallacy you find in that? I do not conclude that the fetus is not a person because it has no rights. That would indeed be circular. I conclude that the fetus is not a person pretty much by looking at it, if you must know.

making a distinction between a fetus and a person is merely a word game.
 
Should an unborn child be entitled to basic human rights? That is the question at hand. Obviously you and I disagree on this point.
Finally, a clear statement of the issue from an abortion opponent.

Yes, we disagree. I cannot call your position illogical and will not try to do so. We are simply working from a different set of premises.

Let me ask you this, however, more for your own contemplation than anything else. Given that these profound disagreements exist between people of good conscience in our society -- and they are truly profound differences -- how can you justify imposing one interpretation by legal fiat? Isn't this a truly classic example of a decision that must, by our traditions, be left to the individual?
 
making a distinction between a fetus and a person is merely a word game.
No, it is not. You want to simply assert that a fetus is a person and I reject that assertion a priori. Unless you're willing to defend your position -- something you've yet to do even once on this forum -- we've nothing more to say to one another.

Is an acorn the same thing as an oak tree? No, it is not. That's why one is called an "acorn" and the other is called an "oak tree." If they were the same things we wouldn't need two words for them. The genetic information for building an oak tree is encapsulated within the acorn, it is true. From one perspective, you can say that the two are merely different stages in the life of one organism. This is also true. It is, however, irrelevant. The acorn is still not an oak tree, no mater how you try to weasel it.
 
No, it is not. You want to simply assert that a fetus is a person and I reject that assertion a priori. Unless you're willing to defend your position -- something you've yet to do even once on this forum -- we've nothing more to say to one another.

Is an acorn the same thing as an oak tree? No, it is not. That's why one is called an "acorn" and the other is called an "oak tree." If they were the same things we wouldn't need two words for them. The genetic information for building an oak tree is encapsulated within the acorn, it is true. From one perspective, you can say that the two are merely different stages in the life of one organism. This is also true. It is, however, irrelevant. The acorn is still not an oak tree, no mater how you try to weasel it.

It is the same organism, but a different stage of development.

A fetus is a human being or person that's merely at a different stage of development. Being young doesn't mean you're dehumanized. Stop being an ignorant jackwad.
 
That's exactly right: it is not a person and therefor does not have rights. That is not circular.

(A) Only persons have rights
(B) A 10 week fetus is not yet a person

Given both (A) and (B) we can conclude (C), that the 10 week old fetus does not have rights.

What is the fallacy you find in that? I do not conclude that the fetus is not a person because it has no rights. That would indeed be circular. I conclude that the fetus is not a person pretty much by looking at it, if you must know.

be·ing /ˈbiɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bee-ing] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).
2. conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.
3. substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear.
4. something that exists: inanimate beings.
5. a living thing: strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.
6. a human being; person: the most beautiful being you could imagine.
7. (initial capital letter) God.
8. Philosophy. a. that which has actuality either materially or in idea.
b. absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, lacking no essential characteristic; essence.

per·son /ˈpɜrsən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pur-suhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology. an individual human being, esp. with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.
6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person.
7. the body in its external aspect: an attractive person to look at.
8. a character, part, or role, as in a play or story.
9. an individual of distinction or importance.
10. a person not entitled to social recognition or respect.
11. Law. a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity (artificial person or juristic person) recognized by law as having rights and duties.
12. Grammar. a category found in many languages that is used to distinguish between the speaker of an utterance and those to or about whom he or she is speaking. In English there are three persons in the pronouns, the first represented by I and we, the second by you, and the third by he, she, it, and they. Most verbs have distinct third person singular forms in the present tense, as writes; the verb be has, in addition, a first person singular form am.
13. Theology. any of the three hypostases or modes of being in the Trinity, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
—Idioms14. be one's own person, to be free from restrictions, control, or dictatorial influence: Now that she's working, she feels that she's her own person.
15. in person, in one's own bodily presence; personally: Applicants are requested to apply in person.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1175–1225; ME persone < L persōna role (in life, a play, or a tale) (LL: member of the Trinity), orig. actor's mask < Etruscan phersu (< Gk prósōpa face, mask) + -na a suffix]


Hmmm.... by the actual definitions of the word... the child is Human, is a "being" and is thus a "person"..... you lose....
 
For clarification... a fetus is simply a STAGE of development. Calling it a fetus is simply a way to dehumanize the child.
An acorn is just a "stage" in the development of an oak tree. So what? Are you seriously going to assert that there's no difference between an acorn and an oak tree? Or, perhaps, that an acorn is an oak tree? If so, I'll call ye daft, man, and call the men in the white coats.

The assertion that a fetus is just a "stage" in the development of a human being is completely irrelevant.
 
That's exactly right: it is not a person and therefor does not have rights. That is not circular.

(A) Only persons have rights
(B) A 10 week fetus is not yet a person

Given both (A) and (B) we can conclude (C), that the 10 week old fetus does not have rights.

What is the fallacy you find in that? I do not conclude that the fetus is not a person because it has no rights. That would indeed be circular. I conclude that the fetus is not a person pretty much by looking at it, if you must know.


Just out of curiosity... when does the magic baby fairy come to turn it into a person?
 
An acorn is just a "stage" in the development of an oak tree. So what? Are you seriously going to assert that there's no difference between an acorn and an oak tree? Or, perhaps, that an acorn is an oak tree? If so, I'll call ye daft, man, and call the men in the white coats.

The assertion that a fetus is just a "stage" in the development of a human being is completely irrelevant.

They are differences in stage of development, like child versus adult. BOTH STILL PEOPLE, you fucking moron. Get a clue.

and yes, THE STAGE issue you're fixated on is irrelevant. You're learning.
 
It is the same organism, but a different stage of development.
Yeah, but, so what? Who cares? It is irrelevant . . . unless you're willing to assert that there are no differences between the legal and moral statuses of organisms at different stages of their development.

Careful there kid. You may just open up a can of whoopass you'd rather not. :cool:
A fetus is a human being or person that's merely at a different stage of development. Being young doesn't mean you're dehumanized. Stop being an ignorant jackwad.
You stop being an authoritarian woman hater and religious bigot and maybe we can talk about that, okay? Seeing as how you want to treat women like cattle and believe that all Jews should be exterminated, I don't see as how you've got much room to wiggle.

:gives:
 
They are differences in stage of development, like child versus adult. BOTH STILL PEOPLE, you fucking moron. Get a clue.
In case you hadn't noticed, children and adults do not have the same status before the law. Or morally, for that matter. And your implicit assertion that a fetus is equivalent to a "child" is so laughably insane as to not merit an answer.

Get help. I'm serious. I fear you're going to hurt someone someday.
 
Yeah, but, so what? Who cares? It is irrelevant . . . unless you're willing to assert that there are no differences between the legal and moral statuses of organisms at different stages of their development.

Careful there kid. You may just open up a can of whoopass you'd rather not. :cool:

You stop being an authoritarian woman hater and religious bigot and maybe we can talk about that, okay? Seeing as how you want to treat women like cattle and believe that all Jews should be exterminated, I don't see as how you've got much room to wiggle.

:gives:

And again, yes, the stage is irrelevant to personhood, human hood, human being-hood, or whatever other stupid word game you want to play.

Where have I advocated women be treated like cattle or jews be exterminated? Show a link or stfu, you lying piece of shit.
 
In case you hadn't noticed, children and adults do not have the same status before the law. Or morally, for that matter. And your implicit assertion that a fetus is equivalent to a "child" is so laughably insane as to not merit an answer.

Get help. I'm serious. I fear you're going to hurt someone someday.

Yes, about driving, alcohol and voting. They're both protected from murder. You're a mental midget.
 
Finally, a clear statement of the issue from an abortion opponent.

Yes, we disagree. I cannot call your position illogical and will not try to do so. We are simply working from a different set of premises.

Let me ask you this, however, more for your own contemplation than anything else. Given that these profound disagreements exist between people of good conscience in our society -- and they are truly profound differences -- how can you justify imposing one interpretation by legal fiat? Isn't this a truly classic example of a decision that must, by our traditions, be left to the individual?

A good question. The answer I would give to you and any other that were to ask is that....

1) It is human
2) It is alive
3) It is growing and developing

I believe that it is better to err on the side of life rather than death. If the decision is left up to the parents (more specifically the woman) then who speaks for the child?

My question back to you would be this.... Note: purely philosophical in nature.... IF we could go back and choose for ourselves whether or not our parents should or should not abort us.... how many of us would then choose abortion?

I know we disagree on this, but I believe most (not all) abortions occur as a matter of convenience. We are too advanced to not understand the concept of HOW a woman gets pregnant. We have numerous forms of contraceptives available. I firmly believe that if a couple CHOOSES to have sex and CHOOSES whether or not to use protection... THAT is where the choice lies. IF pregnancy then occurs, it is a responsibility of the parents to bring the child to term and take care of it.
 
And again, yes, the stage is irrelevant to personhood, human hood, human being-hood, or whatever other stupid word game you want to play.

Where have I advocated women be treated like cattle or jew be exterminated? Show a link or stfu, you lying piece of shit.
No, it is not irrelevant. Not from my perspective and premises. Yours are of no interest to me since, unlike SF, you're incapable of rational discussion.

Everyone on this board knows how much you hate Jews and women, Wipe. Don't even try to bluster your way out of it.
 
For clarification... a fetus is simply a STAGE of development. Calling it a fetus is simply a way to dehumanize the child.

If it isn't viable outside the womb then it isn't a child. It's as described, a fetus. It's a potential child, but not yet a child.

I'd be interested to read what people feel about abortion in the cases of severely malformed or severely retarded fetuses.
 
Some choose...........

If it isn't viable outside the womb then it isn't a child. It's as described, a fetus. It's a potential child, but not yet a child.

I'd be interested to read what people feel about abortion in the cases of severely malformed or severely retarded fetuses.


to care for them...others eliminate them...whats your point again?
 
If it isn't viable outside the womb then it isn't a child. It's as described, a fetus. It's a potential child, but not yet a child.

I'd be interested to read what people feel about abortion in the cases of severely malformed or severely retarded fetuses.

Viability has nothing to do with it being a child or not. A child by definition is the offspring of the parents. A progeny. A fetus is a STAGE of the childs development.


There is no magic baby fairy that comes and turns it into a child. The term "with child" has existed for millenium.... and refers to pregnant women.
 
Back
Top