CDZ Chuz Life's list of (Abortion related) questions that abortion proponents can't or will not answer.

[Chuz Life]

Over the 25 years or so that I have been fighting abortion, I have compiled a list of questions that (for whatever reason) I can not get straight forward answers to - from the left.

Here they are In no particular order.

1. What biological moment took place that makes your biological father YOUR biological father?

2. When the United States Constitution says "all persons" (all human beings) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws. . . Is that an INclusive or is that an EXclusive statement?

3. True or False: This is an image of an Oak Tree in the first days of its life:

4. True or False: This is the image of a child / human being / person in the first days of THEIR life:

4. A living human sperm cell and and a living human egg cell have the potential to merge together to form a new human organism. True or False:

5. Starting at any age, any existing human being's (person's) aging can be traced all the way back to the moment of their biological conception. . . but no further. True or False:

6. If there was a way and if you could manage to physically attach yourself to the body of another (Even to unknowing and unaware) human being in such a way that they will DIE if you several the connection before nine months. . . Would that other human being / person have a right to the use of your body during that amount of time? Yes or No?

I'll add to the list as I think of others. Hopefully, some of you can add some questions to this list too.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I forget, what's the law on this again?

 

[Fishlore]

I appreciate your attempt to spark a discussion on the issue of abortion with that cute, if tendentious, questionnaire, but your questions are about a definition of the word "life," not about the medical procedure of abortion. I suppose it seems self-evident to you that as abortion takes away life, the meaning of the word "life" is critical to discussion of the abortion question. I can see how you think that way, but you don't grasp that such thinking and the questions it produces for you are begging the question, that is, assuming what was to be proved.

As I am sure you know, current abortion law, founded on Roe v. Wade, is based on "privacy" not "life." You are, of course, free to define the question as you wish and to make whatever assumptions seem important to you, but those with different views are unlikely to be swayed by a list of cute trick questions.

 

[JoeMoma]

I appreciate your attempt to spark a discussion on the issue of abortion with that cute, if tendentious, questionnaire, but your questions are about a definition of the word "life," not about the medical procedure of abortion. I suppose it seems self-evident to you that as abortion takes away life, the meaning of the word "life" is critical to discussion of the abortion question. I can see how you think that way, but you don't grasp that such thinking and the questions it produces for you are begging the question, that is, assuming what was to be proved.

As I am sure you know, current abortion law, founded on Roe v. Wade, is based on "privacy" not "life." You are, of course, free to define the question as you wish and to make whatever assumptions seem important to you, but those with different views are unlikely to be swayed by a list of cute trick questions.

Does "privacy" justify rape?
Does "privacy" justify spousal abuse?
Does "privacy" justify killing people after birth?
Does "privacy" justify child molestation or child porn?

 

[Fishlore]

I appreciate your attempt to spark a discussion on the issue of abortion with that cute, if tendentious, questionnaire, but your questions are about a definition of the word "life," not about the medical procedure of abortion. I suppose it seems self-evident to you that as abortion takes away life, the meaning of the word "life" is critical to discussion of the abortion question. I can see how you think that way, but you don't grasp that such thinking and the questions it produces for you are begging the question, that is, assuming what was to be proved.

As I am sure you know, current abortion law, founded on Roe v. Wade, is based on "privacy" not "life." You are, of course, free to define the question as you wish and to make whatever assumptions seem important to you, but those with different views are unlikely to be swayed by a list of cute trick questions.

Does "privacy" justify rape?
Does "privacy" justify spousal abuse?
Does "privacy" justify killing people after birth?
Does "privacy" justify child molestation or child porn?

What silly ^^^ questions! Roe vs. Wade does not address any of those issues. You don't seem to be thinking clearly.

 

[Chuz Life]

Would that some of you abortion proponents would put as much effort into answering the questions as you do I to trying to ridicule and your trying to derail the thread.

The questions are not going to go away just because you don't like them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chuz will lose, no news

1. Live Birth.

2. That is a statement that applies to human beings, not fetuses.

3. False.

4. False.

5. A fetal organism is not a human being.

6. Can be traced to birth.

7. Fetal Rights are subordinate to the Mother and viability, yes.

 

[Syriusly]

Over the 25 years or so that I have been fighting abortion, I have compiled a list of questions that (for whatever reason) I can not get straight forward answers to - from the left.

Here they are In no particular order.

1. What biological moment took place that makes your biological father YOUR biological father?
.

No idea. What do you think it is? And how do you know?

My question to you: who is an 'abortion proponent'?

Is that like an 'appendectomy proponent'? A 'masectomy proponent'?

 

[usmbguest5318]

First, I don't propone abortion. I merely think it's not my or anyone else's business to encourage or prohibit a pregnant woman's having the procedure performed.

What biological moment took place that makes your biological father YOUR biological father?

There was no biological moment. There was a biological event, and that event was the acrosome reaction.

When the United States Constitution says "all persons" (all human beings) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws. . . Is that an INclusive or is that an EXclusive statement?

It is an inclusive statement, however, fetuses, are not persons; thus that statement does not apply to them.

True or False: This is an image of an Oak Tree in the first days of its life:

I don't know. I have not observed the moment of an oak tree's emergence from the womb we call an acorn.

True or False: This is the image of a child / human being / person in the first days of THEIR life:

Not enough information is in the image for me to be certain. If the object shown in the image is in fact a human fetus that is inside a womb, my answer is, no, it is the image of a fetus. It's worth noting that I have no idea of when a genus homo fetus ceases to resemble those of a genus pan one.

A living human sperm cell and and a living human egg cell have the potential to merge together to form a new human organism. True or False:

Given the context of your OP, that is a leading question; thus I won't answer it. I'll rephrase it so it is neutrally presented, and then I'll answer the revised question. If you can produce you own version that doesn't contain qualitative adjectives that force the responder to tacitly agree to them as well as the rest of the question's content, by all means, present it and I'll answer it.

A human sperm cell and and a human egg cell have the potential to merge together to form a new human organism. True or False:

True

Starting at any age, any existing human being's (person's) aging can be traced all the way back to the moment of their biological conception. . . but no further. True or False:

False. Humans', people's, a person's age is measured from the point of emergence from the womb. A fetus' age can be traced to the moment of conception. A fetus is no longer a fetus when it leaves the womb.

If there was a way and if you could manage to physically attach yourself to the body of another (Even to unknowing and unaware) human being in such a way that they will DIE if you several the connection before nine months. . . Would that other human being / person have a right to the use of your body during that amount of time? Yes or No?

What? Can you rewrite that so it's a coherent question?

 

[usmbguest5318]

There was no biological moment. There was a biological event, and that event was the acrosome reaction.

Perhaps that's a bit too temporally semantic/equivocal and, quite frankly, it's not precisely what I meant. What I meant to have said is this: There was a biological process, and the process is the acrosome reaction.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I appreciate your attempt to spark a discussion on the issue of abortion with that cute, if tendentious, questionnaire, but your questions are about a definition of the word "life," not about the medical procedure of abortion. I suppose it seems self-evident to you that as abortion takes away life, the meaning of the word "life" is critical to discussion of the abortion question. I can see how you think that way, but you don't grasp that such thinking and the questions it produces for you are begging the question, that is, assuming what was to be proved.

As I am sure you know, current abortion law, founded on Roe v. Wade, is based on "privacy" not "life." You are, of course, free to define the question as you wish and to make whatever assumptions seem important to you, but those with different views are unlikely to be swayed by a list of cute trick questions.

Yes. One can tell from the questions asked that what will ensue from the OP is a litany of arguments that suffer from a host of formal fallacies including affirmation of the consequent and denial of the antecedent. There's no telling with which informal fallacious lines of argument the OP will entertain us. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[JoeMoma]

I appreciate your attempt to spark a discussion on the issue of abortion with that cute, if tendentious, questionnaire, but your questions are about a definition of the word "life," not about the medical procedure of abortion. I suppose it seems self-evident to you that as abortion takes away life, the meaning of the word "life" is critical to discussion of the abortion question. I can see how you think that way, but you don't grasp that such thinking and the questions it produces for you are begging the question, that is, assuming what was to be proved.

As I am sure you know, current abortion law, founded on Roe v. Wade, is based on "privacy" not "life." You are, of course, free to define the question as you wish and to make whatever assumptions seem important to you, but those with different views are unlikely to be swayed by a list of cute trick questions.

Does "privacy" justify rape?
Does "privacy" justify spousal abuse?
Does "privacy" justify killing people after birth?
Does "privacy" justify child molestation or child porn?

What silly ^^^ questions! Roe vs. Wade does not address any of those issues. You don't seem to be thinking clearly.

You don't seem to be thinking clearly if you are looking to Roe vs. Wade for the answers to the questions I asked.

 

[L Irene]

Thank you for these questions! I'm not exactly an abortion proponent - I'm okay with people choosing not to have abortions, just like I'm okay with them choosing to - but I think I can answer your questions from my current point of view:

1. A series of moments are necessary. Conception is the first one that links the father to the series of objects that will eventually become Me, but further events are necessary before I come into being. So, conception sets up: "If a person arises from this, then xyz man will be their father." And other events set up: "A person will arise form this."

2. It is both - it specifies exactly the people it includes, and doesn't include anyone else. All persons, and no non-persons.

3. True.

4. False.

4 (second #4?). Given the right environment, a sperm cell and an egg cell have the potential to contribute to the formation of a human organism, but on their own, they can't form one.

5. Really depends what you mean by aging, but I'm leaning toward "true."

6. This is an interesting inversion of the Famous Violinist problem. I suppose if you freely chose to make that connection, then yes, they would be allowed to use your body.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I forget, what's the law on this again?

I forget, who has the Constitutional authority to create laws again?

 

[Fenton Lum]

I forget, what's the law on this again?

I forget, who has the Constitutional authority to create laws again?

Oh, you don’t like the law.

 

[JoeMoma]

I forget, what's the law on this again?

I forget, who has the Constitutional authority to create laws again?

In this case, the supreme court "created" the law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I forget, what's the law on this again?

I forget, who has the Constitutional authority to create laws again?

Oh, you don’t like the law.

Law created by the judicial branch?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I forget, what's the law on this again?

I forget, who has the Constitutional authority to create laws again?

In this case, the supreme court "created" the law.

Do they have the Constitutional authority to create law?

 

[JoeMoma]

I forget, what's the law on this again?

I forget, who has the Constitutional authority to create laws again?

In this case, the supreme court "created" the law.

Do they have the Constitutional authority to create law?

I say no! But the supreme court disagrees with me.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I forget, what's the law on this again?

I forget, who has the Constitutional authority to create laws again?

In this case, the supreme court "created" the law.

Do they have the Constitutional authority to create law?

I say no! But the supreme court disagrees with me.

They disagree that they should be constrained by the Constitution?

{
Article. I.
Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.}