Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[Zoom-boing]

Expand to see answers.

Once again, you cherry pick my post while completely ignoring everything else I've said then have the balls to turn around and call me a liar.

When you grow a pair, let me know.

Because nothing you say after that matters. I never denied that a fetus, or an embryo has intrinsic value. You claiming that that value is equal to a child, and still insist that you would save the child makes you a liar. Either you lied when you said you would save 1 child instead of 1,000, or you are lying when you insist that a fetus/embryo is equivalent to a child.

I'll let you decide which was the lie.

Everything I said matters. The fact is you're incapable of even addressing it so you dodge it. Typical. If the five yr old has intrinsic value then so does the pre-born have the same intrinsic value, as intrinsic value is present from the first moment they exist as a distinct entity. That's what intrinsic means. You're attempting to give intrinsic a 'more or less' definition by saying the pre-born fetus has less value. Sorry, Charlie, you do not get to redefine the term. Again, when do they first exist as a distinct entity?? If you don't answer this (I've asked you several times now), we'll all know you're just full of shit. If they do not have value, or if their value is less (as you claim), then their value is not intrinsic and never will be. If the pre-born fetus is without this value then so is the five yr old then so is the 90 yr old.

Have I ever claimed otherwise? Once again for the cheap seats. An embryo has intrinsic value, just as a child has intrinsic value. See, this is why what you are saying about intrinsic value is meaningless. You keep pretending that I am denying that embryos have intrinsic value. Wrong, I specifically said you did say that pre-born humans have intrinsic value. I even quoted you. I'm not. However, to suggest that simply because two different things A pre-born human and a post-born human are not two different things; they are both human therefore they both have the same intrinsic moral value. Their location or where they are developmentally does not change this. have intrinsic moral value that they have equal moral value two different things do not necessarily have the same value. Again, a pre-born human and a post-born human are not different, as they are both human beings. Location does not enter into the equation because location does not dictate their humanness. is so sophomoric, naive, and idiotic, as to require me to assume that, because I know that you are not a moron, that you are intentionally being dishonest to suggest such. A flower has intrinsic moral value. A person has intrinsic moral value. Would you really be so stupid as to claim that because this is true, they have equal moral value?!?! wtf are you comparing humans to plants saying they have the same value and trying to project that onto me?? I truly hope not, because if you would, then I will have no choice but to simply refuse to ever engage you in discussion again, as that would indicate that you are clearly too stupid to be capable of rational thought.

The only thing you've proven is that in this scenario you'd react with logic whereas I'd react with emotion, instinct, and panic. You're attempting to equate "logical vs emotional reactions" with "pre-born humans fetuses have less value than born humans". Fail. That and the fact that your ilk continually try to convince others that pre-born human beings fetuses aren't actually pre-born human beings children. Science says otherwise, Frances. You fail. Again.

I suppose that you may have a point. However, even considering that, that means that you are admitting that attempting to equate a fetus with a child is an emotional determination, not a rational one. Except that's not what I said. I said that YOU were attempting to equate 'logical vs emotional REACTIONS' with 'pre-born humans have less value than born humans'. REACTION to the situation. Emotional attachment is a personal matter, and no stranger has the right to dictate the personal , emotional choices of anyone other than themselves. Science says no such thing. Science specifically between fetuses, and children. As does the law.

You still refuse to answer my question as to when humans first exist as a distinct entity. I told you if you didn't answer you'd be admitting that you're full of shit. Good on you for at least admitting this.

I'm sorry. I thought I made that clear. Around the 23rd week of pregnancy. This is the earliest that a fetus has any chance of viability. This is also why I do not oppose any suggestion of banning abortion after this point.

I'm sure you expected me to say "when they are born", but that is just as stupid, and irrational. Because that means that viable fetuses that are removed before they come to term, for medical reasons, aren't really "individuals". That's absurd.

No. The fetus becomes an individual when it demonstrates viability, which is around week 23. I mean, technically a 22 week old has a statistically 0 to 10% chance. But, my opinion is that slim a chance is negligible. That's why I dray the line at week 23.

ftr, changing another posters post is against board rules. Do it again and I'll report you.

Then we'll just have to put one another on ignore. Because I refuse to acknowledge intentionally dishonest statements.

Nice completely ignoring AGAIN everything else I posted. That's because you have no argument.

So, prior to 23 weeks in-utero you're saying that pre-born humans are not a distinct entity? They do not have their own dna? Their own heartbeat, nervous system, body, their own ... everything? You're saying they don't have this until almost six months????

I don't give a shit what you do or not not acknowledge. Get off your high horse. Altering another posters post is against board rules. Knock it off or get reported. I did notice that you gave yourself another dodge - you'll put me on ignore for pointing out board rules. You can't even reply to my answers you just put me on ignore and run away?

 

[Zoom-boing]

I never denied that a fetus, or an embryo has intrinsic value.

Intrinsic:

belonging to a thing by its very nature

the definition of intrinsic

Belonging naturally; essential.

intrinsic | Definition of intrinsic in English by Oxford Dictionaries

You claiming that that value is equal to a child

If the pre-born fetus has intrinsic value it IS equal to the value of a child, as that's what intrinsic means.

Your weak attempt at redefining 'intrinsic' shows YOU to be the hack and liar.

It also shows that, whether you admit it or not, you KNOW that pre-borns have the same value as the born. You just stated it, above. Your subconscious is talking to you. Do yourself a favor and listen to it.

.
If you truly believe that, then you are a moron. Because everything has intrinsic value. By your logic - or lack thereof, as it were - a fucking rock has the same moral value as a child. A fucking diamond necklace has the same moral value as a child. A piece of mother-fucking paper has the same moral value as a child! Surely you see how stupid it is to claim that just because two different things have intrinsic value, they, then, have equal moral value?!?!?

Everything doesn't have instrinsic value. Everything doesn't have moral value.

Really? Name something that doesn't have intrinsic value.

...a pre-born human an embryo...

Last warning. Post that meaningless phrase to try to create a false equivalency between an embryo, and a child, and I will simply put you on ignore. Now, you wanna report me, report me. Use that dishonest term again, and I will simply put you on ignore, so that I do not have to engage with your dishonesty any more.

Incidentally, threatening to report me for ":changing" your post indicates that you know that you are being dishonest, otherwise I haven't changed anything, and am simply using a synonym of your posted words.

Cars do not have intrinsic value.

You've been reported for altering my post. It's against board rules, Francis.

Reporting you for altering my posts means you broke board rules. You are truly stupid to not understand this.

Reported.

Go ahead, put me on ignore. You'll confirm what I already know, you have no argument and this is your way of getting out of replying to my previous answers to your posts.

 

[Czernobog]

Ya know, I actually was going to ignore you for continmuing to use that dishonest phrase, but I'd rather expose your irrationality in service to your dishonesty.

Nice completely ignoring AGAIN everything else I posted. That's because you have no argument.

So, prior to 23 weeks in-utero you're saying that pre-born humans non-viable fetuses are not a distinct entity? They do not have their own dna?

So does Cancer. Is that a disticnt entity that deserves to live?

Their own heartbeat, nervous system, body, their own ... everything? You're saying they don't have this until almost six months????

I'm saying all of those things are completely dependent on the fetus' host until that point. Which makes it not independent. That's rather the point of viability.

 

[Auld Phart]

Expand to see answers.

Once again, you cherry pick my post while completely ignoring everything else I've said then have the balls to turn around and call me a liar.

When you grow a pair, let me know.

Because nothing you say after that matters. I never denied that a fetus, or an embryo has intrinsic value. You claiming that that value is equal to a child, and still insist that you would save the child makes you a liar. Either you lied when you said you would save 1 child instead of 1,000, or you are lying when you insist that a fetus/embryo is equivalent to a child.

I'll let you decide which was the lie.

Everything I said matters. The fact is you're incapable of even addressing it so you dodge it. Typical. If the five yr old has intrinsic value then so does the pre-born have the same intrinsic value, as intrinsic value is present from the first moment they exist as a distinct entity. That's what intrinsic means. You're attempting to give intrinsic a 'more or less' definition by saying the pre-born fetus has less value. Sorry, Charlie, you do not get to redefine the term. Again, when do they first exist as a distinct entity?? If you don't answer this (I've asked you several times now), we'll all know you're just full of shit. If they do not have value, or if their value is less (as you claim), then their value is not intrinsic and never will be. If the pre-born fetus is without this value then so is the five yr old then so is the 90 yr old.

Have I ever claimed otherwise? Once again for the cheap seats. An embryo has intrinsic value, just as a child has intrinsic value. See, this is why what you are saying about intrinsic value is meaningless. You keep pretending that I am denying that embryos have intrinsic value. Wrong, I specifically said you did say that pre-born humans have intrinsic value. I even quoted you. I'm not. However, to suggest that simply because two different things A pre-born human and a post-born human are not two different things; they are both human therefore they both have the same intrinsic moral value. Their location or where they are developmentally does not change this. have intrinsic moral value that they have equal moral value two different things do not necessarily have the same value. Again, a pre-born human and a post-born human are not different, as they are both human beings. Location does not enter into the equation because location does not dictate their humanness. is so sophomoric, naive, and idiotic, as to require me to assume that, because I know that you are not a moron, that you are intentionally being dishonest to suggest such. A flower has intrinsic moral value. A person has intrinsic moral value. Would you really be so stupid as to claim that because this is true, they have equal moral value?!?! wtf are you comparing humans to plants saying they have the same value and trying to project that onto me?? I truly hope not, because if you would, then I will have no choice but to simply refuse to ever engage you in discussion again, as that would indicate that you are clearly too stupid to be capable of rational thought.

The only thing you've proven is that in this scenario you'd react with logic whereas I'd react with emotion, instinct, and panic. You're attempting to equate "logical vs emotional reactions" with "pre-born humans fetuses have less value than born humans". Fail. That and the fact that your ilk continually try to convince others that pre-born human beings fetuses aren't actually pre-born human beings children. Science says otherwise, Frances. You fail. Again.

I suppose that you may have a point. However, even considering that, that means that you are admitting that attempting to equate a fetus with a child is an emotional determination, not a rational one. Except that's not what I said. I said that YOU were attempting to equate 'logical vs emotional REACTIONS' with 'pre-born humans have less value than born humans'. REACTION to the situation. Emotional attachment is a personal matter, and no stranger has the right to dictate the personal , emotional choices of anyone other than themselves. Science says no such thing. Science specifically between fetuses, and children. As does the law.

You still refuse to answer my question as to when humans first exist as a distinct entity. I told you if you didn't answer you'd be admitting that you're full of shit. Good on you for at least admitting this.

I'm sorry. I thought I made that clear. Around the 23rd week of pregnancy. This is the earliest that a fetus has any chance of viability. This is also why I do not oppose any suggestion of banning abortion after this point.

I'm sure you expected me to say "when they are born", but that is just as stupid, and irrational. Because that means that viable fetuses that are removed before they come to term, for medical reasons, aren't really "individuals". That's absurd.

No. The fetus becomes an individual when it demonstrates viability, which is around week 23. I mean, technically a 22 week old has a statistically 0 to 10% chance. But, my opinion is that slim a chance is negligible. That's why I dray the line at week 23.

ftr, changing another posters post is against board rules. Do it again and I'll report you.

Then we'll just have to put one another on ignore. Because I refuse to acknowledge intentionally dishonest statements.

Then we'll just have to put one another on ignore. Because I refuse to acknowledge intentionally dishonest statements.

But you do have to obey the rules.

 

[Czernobog]

I never denied that a fetus, or an embryo has intrinsic value.

Intrinsic:

belonging to a thing by its very nature

the definition of intrinsic

Belonging naturally; essential.

intrinsic | Definition of intrinsic in English by Oxford Dictionaries

You claiming that that value is equal to a child

If the pre-born fetus has intrinsic value it IS equal to the value of a child, as that's what intrinsic means.

Your weak attempt at redefining 'intrinsic' shows YOU to be the hack and liar.

It also shows that, whether you admit it or not, you KNOW that pre-borns have the same value as the born. You just stated it, above. Your subconscious is talking to you. Do yourself a favor and listen to it.

.
If you truly believe that, then you are a moron. Because everything has intrinsic value. By your logic - or lack thereof, as it were - a fucking rock has the same moral value as a child. A fucking diamond necklace has the same moral value as a child. A piece of mother-fucking paper has the same moral value as a child! Surely you see how stupid it is to claim that just because two different things have intrinsic value, they, then, have equal moral value?!?!?

Everything doesn't have instrinsic value. Everything doesn't have moral value.

Really? Name something that doesn't have intrinsic value.

...a pre-born human an embryo...

Last warning. Post that meaningless phrase to try to create a false equivalency between an embryo, and a child, and I will simply put you on ignore. Now, you wanna report me, report me. Use that dishonest term again, and I will simply put you on ignore, so that I do not have to engage with your dishonesty any more.

Incidentally, threatening to report me for ":changing" your post indicates that you know that you are being dishonest, otherwise I haven't changed anything, and am simply using a synonym of your posted words.

Cars do not have intrinsic value.

You've been reported for altering my post. It's against board rules, Francis.

Reporting you for altering my posts means you broke board rules. You are truly stupid to not understand this.

Reported.

Go ahead, put me on ignore. You'll confirm what I already know, you have no argument and this is your way of getting out of replying to my previous answers to your posts.

and you are then ignored, Suzie. Buh bye.

 

[mamooth]

Humans do. Their value begins when they begin. When is that? When they first come into existence, as that is the beginning of a human being.

So every sperm is sacred. Got it.

Your claim that a new human being is formed at conception is subjective nonsense, contradicted by science, common sense and basic decency. You're basically just trying to define yourself as correct.

Their value remains the same from the start to the finish.

Totally wrong. The moral value of a sperm/zygote/embryo/fetus/ grows as it grows. That's what everyone feels in their gut, and that's how law, society and tradition treat things. And that's what the scenario illustrates.

It doesn't increase or decrease, it isn't based on location (in or out of utero). If a pre-born human has instrinic value it is there from the start, it is the same value as in a post-born human.

That's dopey. An acorn in my yard does not have the same moral value as my oak tree. Development matters a lot.

 

[Auld Phart]

Expand to see answers.

Everything I said matters. The fact is you're incapable of even addressing it so you dodge it. Typical. If the five yr old has intrinsic value then so does the pre-born have the same intrinsic value, as intrinsic value is present from the first moment they exist as a distinct entity. That's what intrinsic means. You're attempting to give intrinsic a 'more or less' definition by saying the pre-born fetus has less value. Sorry, Charlie, you do not get to redefine the term. Again, when do they first exist as a distinct entity?? If you don't answer this (I've asked you several times now), we'll all know you're just full of shit. If they do not have value, or if their value is less (as you claim), then their value is not intrinsic and never will be. If the pre-born fetus is without this value then so is the five yr old then so is the 90 yr old.

Have I ever claimed otherwise? Once again for the cheap seats. An embryo has intrinsic value, just as a child has intrinsic value. See, this is why what you are saying about intrinsic value is meaningless. You keep pretending that I am denying that embryos have intrinsic value. Wrong, I specifically said you did say that pre-born humans have intrinsic value. I even quoted you. I'm not. However, to suggest that simply because two different things A pre-born human and a post-born human are not two different things; they are both human therefore they both have the same intrinsic moral value. Their location or where they are developmentally does not change this. have intrinsic moral value that they have equal moral value two different things do not necessarily have the same value. Again, a pre-born human and a post-born human are not different, as they are both human beings. Location does not enter into the equation because location does not dictate their humanness. is so sophomoric, naive, and idiotic, as to require me to assume that, because I know that you are not a moron, that you are intentionally being dishonest to suggest such. A flower has intrinsic moral value. A person has intrinsic moral value. Would you really be so stupid as to claim that because this is true, they have equal moral value?!?! wtf are you comparing humans to plants saying they have the same value and trying to project that onto me?? I truly hope not, because if you would, then I will have no choice but to simply refuse to ever engage you in discussion again, as that would indicate that you are clearly too stupid to be capable of rational thought.

The only thing you've proven is that in this scenario you'd react with logic whereas I'd react with emotion, instinct, and panic. You're attempting to equate "logical vs emotional reactions" with "pre-born humans fetuses have less value than born humans". Fail. That and the fact that your ilk continually try to convince others that pre-born human beings fetuses aren't actually pre-born human beings children. Science says otherwise, Frances. You fail. Again.

I suppose that you may have a point. However, even considering that, that means that you are admitting that attempting to equate a fetus with a child is an emotional determination, not a rational one. Except that's not what I said. I said that YOU were attempting to equate 'logical vs emotional REACTIONS' with 'pre-born humans have less value than born humans'. REACTION to the situation. Emotional attachment is a personal matter, and no stranger has the right to dictate the personal , emotional choices of anyone other than themselves. Science says no such thing. Science specifically between fetuses, and children. As does the law.

You still refuse to answer my question as to when humans first exist as a distinct entity. I told you if you didn't answer you'd be admitting that you're full of shit. Good on you for at least admitting this.

I'm sorry. I thought I made that clear. Around the 23rd week of pregnancy. This is the earliest that a fetus has any chance of viability. This is also why I do not oppose any suggestion of banning abortion after this point.

I'm sure you expected me to say "when they are born", but that is just as stupid, and irrational. Because that means that viable fetuses that are removed before they come to term, for medical reasons, aren't really "individuals". That's absurd.

No. The fetus becomes an individual when it demonstrates viability, which is around week 23. I mean, technically a 22 week old has a statistically 0 to 10% chance. But, my opinion is that slim a chance is negligible. That's why I dray the line at week 23.

ftr, changing another posters post is against board rules. Do it again and I'll report you.

Then we'll just have to put one another on ignore. Because I refuse to acknowledge intentionally dishonest statements.

Then we'll just have to put one another on ignore. Because I refuse to acknowledge intentionally dishonest statements.

But you do have to obey the rules.

Except according to his very argument, I'm changing nothing. According to him preborn human is synonymous with embryo, and non-viable fetus. So, how am I changing the meaning of his post, if the words are synonymous?

he can't have it both ways, He can't whine to the moderators that I am changing the meaning of his post, and insist that the terms mean the same thing.

So, how am I changing the meaning of his post, if the words are synonymous?

If they aren't the same words, you changed the quote.

BTW

Discussing mod actions in open forum is another hit.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Expand to see answers.

Humans do. Their value begins when they begin. When is that? When they first come into existence, as that is the beginning of a human being.

So every sperm is sacred. Got it.

A sperm is not a human being, moron.

Your claim that a new human being is formed at conception is subjective nonsense, contradicted by science, common sense and basic decency. You're basically just trying to define yourself as correct.

Does the pre-born human exist before it made? No. When does it begin to exist? When it is first made. When is that??

Their value remains the same from the start to the finish.

Totally wrong. The moral value of a sperm/zygote/embryo/fetus/ grows as it grows. That's what everyone feels in their gut, and that's how law, society and tradition treat things. And that's what the scenario illustrates.

Wrong. Their intrinsic value is determined by the fact that they are a human being. It is not dependent upon what stage of development they are in or their location. If it were, then a 20 year old would have more value than a 20 month old. Incorrect, they both have the same value because they are both human beings. From the damn get go.

It doesn't increase or decrease, it isn't based on location (in or out of utero). If a pre-born human has instrinic value it is there from the start, it is the same value as in a post-born human.

That's dopey. An acorn in my yard does not have the same moral value as my oak tree. Development matters a lot.

People are not acorns, moron.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Expand to see answers.

Have I ever claimed otherwise? Once again for the cheap seats. An embryo has intrinsic value, just as a child has intrinsic value. See, this is why what you are saying about intrinsic value is meaningless. You keep pretending that I am denying that embryos have intrinsic value. Wrong, I specifically said you did say that pre-born humans have intrinsic value. I even quoted you. I'm not. However, to suggest that simply because two different things A pre-born human and a post-born human are not two different things; they are both human therefore they both have the same intrinsic moral value. Their location or where they are developmentally does not change this. have intrinsic moral value that they have equal moral value two different things do not necessarily have the same value. Again, a pre-born human and a post-born human are not different, as they are both human beings. Location does not enter into the equation because location does not dictate their humanness. is so sophomoric, naive, and idiotic, as to require me to assume that, because I know that you are not a moron, that you are intentionally being dishonest to suggest such. A flower has intrinsic moral value. A person has intrinsic moral value. Would you really be so stupid as to claim that because this is true, they have equal moral value?!?! wtf are you comparing humans to plants saying they have the same value and trying to project that onto me?? I truly hope not, because if you would, then I will have no choice but to simply refuse to ever engage you in discussion again, as that would indicate that you are clearly too stupid to be capable of rational thought.



I suppose that you may have a point. However, even considering that, that means that you are admitting that attempting to equate a fetus with a child is an emotional determination, not a rational one. Except that's not what I said. I said that YOU were attempting to equate 'logical vs emotional REACTIONS' with 'pre-born humans have less value than born humans'. REACTION to the situation. Emotional attachment is a personal matter, and no stranger has the right to dictate the personal , emotional choices of anyone other than themselves. Science says no such thing. Science specifically between fetuses, and children. As does the law.

You still refuse to answer my question as to when humans first exist as a distinct entity. I told you if you didn't answer you'd be admitting that you're full of shit. Good on you for at least admitting this.

I'm sorry. I thought I made that clear. Around the 23rd week of pregnancy. This is the earliest that a fetus has any chance of viability. This is also why I do not oppose any suggestion of banning abortion after this point.

I'm sure you expected me to say "when they are born", but that is just as stupid, and irrational. Because that means that viable fetuses that are removed before they come to term, for medical reasons, aren't really "individuals". That's absurd.

No. The fetus becomes an individual when it demonstrates viability, which is around week 23. I mean, technically a 22 week old has a statistically 0 to 10% chance. But, my opinion is that slim a chance is negligible. That's why I dray the line at week 23.

ftr, changing another posters post is against board rules. Do it again and I'll report you.

Then we'll just have to put one another on ignore. Because I refuse to acknowledge intentionally dishonest statements.

Then we'll just have to put one another on ignore. Because I refuse to acknowledge intentionally dishonest statements.

But you do have to obey the rules.

Except according to his very argument, I'm changing nothing. According to him preborn human is synonymous with embryo, and non-viable fetus. So, how am I changing the meaning of his post, if the words are synonymous?

he can't have it both ways, He can't whine to the moderators that I am changing the meaning of his post, and insist that the terms mean the same thing.

So, how am I changing the meaning of his post, if the words are synonymous?

If they aren't the same words, you changed the quote.

BTW

Discussing mod actions in open forum is another hit.

Thanks. Leftists never do like following the rules much.

 

[Czernobog]

Expand to see answers.

Have I ever claimed otherwise? Once again for the cheap seats. An embryo has intrinsic value, just as a child has intrinsic value. See, this is why what you are saying about intrinsic value is meaningless. You keep pretending that I am denying that embryos have intrinsic value. Wrong, I specifically said you did say that pre-born humans have intrinsic value. I even quoted you. I'm not. However, to suggest that simply because two different things A pre-born human and a post-born human are not two different things; they are both human therefore they both have the same intrinsic moral value. Their location or where they are developmentally does not change this. have intrinsic moral value that they have equal moral value two different things do not necessarily have the same value. Again, a pre-born human and a post-born human are not different, as they are both human beings. Location does not enter into the equation because location does not dictate their humanness. is so sophomoric, naive, and idiotic, as to require me to assume that, because I know that you are not a moron, that you are intentionally being dishonest to suggest such. A flower has intrinsic moral value. A person has intrinsic moral value. Would you really be so stupid as to claim that because this is true, they have equal moral value?!?! wtf are you comparing humans to plants saying they have the same value and trying to project that onto me?? I truly hope not, because if you would, then I will have no choice but to simply refuse to ever engage you in discussion again, as that would indicate that you are clearly too stupid to be capable of rational thought.



I suppose that you may have a point. However, even considering that, that means that you are admitting that attempting to equate a fetus with a child is an emotional determination, not a rational one. Except that's not what I said. I said that YOU were attempting to equate 'logical vs emotional REACTIONS' with 'pre-born humans have less value than born humans'. REACTION to the situation. Emotional attachment is a personal matter, and no stranger has the right to dictate the personal , emotional choices of anyone other than themselves. Science says no such thing. Science specifically between fetuses, and children. As does the law.

You still refuse to answer my question as to when humans first exist as a distinct entity. I told you if you didn't answer you'd be admitting that you're full of shit. Good on you for at least admitting this.

I'm sorry. I thought I made that clear. Around the 23rd week of pregnancy. This is the earliest that a fetus has any chance of viability. This is also why I do not oppose any suggestion of banning abortion after this point.

I'm sure you expected me to say "when they are born", but that is just as stupid, and irrational. Because that means that viable fetuses that are removed before they come to term, for medical reasons, aren't really "individuals". That's absurd.

No. The fetus becomes an individual when it demonstrates viability, which is around week 23. I mean, technically a 22 week old has a statistically 0 to 10% chance. But, my opinion is that slim a chance is negligible. That's why I dray the line at week 23.

ftr, changing another posters post is against board rules. Do it again and I'll report you.

Then we'll just have to put one another on ignore. Because I refuse to acknowledge intentionally dishonest statements.

Then we'll just have to put one another on ignore. Because I refuse to acknowledge intentionally dishonest statements.

But you do have to obey the rules.

Except according to his very argument, I'm changing nothing. According to him preborn human is synonymous with embryo, and non-viable fetus. So, how am I changing the meaning of his post, if the words are synonymous?

he can't have it both ways, He can't whine to the moderators that I am changing the meaning of his post, and insist that the terms mean the same thing.

So, how am I changing the meaning of his post, if the words are synonymous?

If they aren't the same words, you changed the quote.

BTW

Discussing mod actions in open forum is another hit.

You came to me!!!! I didn't come bitching at you!

I do have a question, just so I know for future reference. The rule does not have anything to do with changing the meaning of a post; just the words? So if someone were to post "few", and I quoted them as "several", even though the meaning is the same, it would still be an infraction?

 

[Czernobog]

Expand to see answers.

Humans do. Their value begins when they begin. When is that? When they first come into existence, as that is the beginning of a human being.

So every sperm is sacred. Got it.

A sperm is not a human being, moron.

Your claim that a new human being is formed at conception is subjective nonsense, contradicted by science, common sense and basic decency. You're basically just trying to define yourself as correct.

Does the pre-born human exist before it made? No. When does it begin to exist? When it is first made. When is that??

Their value remains the same from the start to the finish.

Totally wrong. The moral value of a sperm/zygote/embryo/fetus/ grows as it grows. That's what everyone feels in their gut, and that's how law, society and tradition treat things. And that's what the scenario illustrates.

Wrong. Their intrinsic value is determined by the fact that they are a human being. It is not dependent upon what stage of development they are in or their location. If it were, then a 20 year old would have more value than a 20 month old. Incorrect, they both have the same value because they are both human beings. From the damn get go.

It doesn't increase or decrease, it isn't based on location (in or out of utero). If a pre-born human has instrinic value it is there from the start, it is the same value as in a post-born human.

That's dopey. An acorn in my yard does not have the same moral value as my oak tree. Development matters a lot.

People are not acorns, moron.

Oaks aren't either.

 

[hadit]

So...if you just happened on the kid standing silently, it would change your moral calculus? Really????

What moral calculus? A crying child needs help. A quiet child can take direction. You can tell him to run out of the now open door while you grab the vials and get them out.

Just because he is standing there paralysed with fear, not screaming, you think he can "take direction". Really??? Like everyone else, you are just trying to find a way to change the parameters to prevent you from having to make a choice.

Tell you what. You want a change that doesn't require a fear response. Here you go, in one corner of the room - that is to large to reach each corner in time, mind you - is a sleeping baby, and in the other is a cold box labelled 1,000 embryos. There you go. Now you don't have the "terrified screaming" of the child to sway your emotion. Choose.

See, now you're trying to change the parameters. I thought you didn't want to do that. Anyway, that's easy. You save the one that experiences pain and suffers, then mourn over the many that will never get the opportunity to grow and thrive

Okay. So your moral caclulation is interesting. The ability to fell pain creates a higher moral value, and responsibility. Okay. My calculus would have been slightly different, but would have arrived at the same conclusion.

You see, you thought that by getting me to say that an unborn baby embryo without a functioning brain doesn't suffer I would be saying that the unborn embryo is less than human and can be safely tossed in the trash. Again, the reaction doesn't define the humanity of those not saved, any more than saving a sleeping baby instead of an adult in a persistent vegetative state makes the adult any less human.

Not the humanity, the moral value. And it certainly does. You did decide that the embryos were of less moral value, and could simply be "tossed in the trash" during the clean up after the fire. Otherwise you would have saved them.

You can keep denying this all you like, but your reaction demonstrates that you do not, regardless of your dihonest attempts to suggest otherwise, assign the same relative moral value to an embryo that you do to an actual baby, or child.

It's a choice between two sets of humans, not between a human and something else. That's been my point the whole time, that we place value on people all the time, but it doesn't alter their humanity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Zoom-boing]

Ya know, I actually was going to ignore you for continmuing to use that dishonest phrase, but I'd rather expose your irrationality in service to your dishonesty.

Nice completely ignoring AGAIN everything else I posted. That's because you have no argument.

So, prior to 23 weeks in-utero you're saying that pre-born humans non-viable fetuses are not a distinct entity? They do not have their own dna?

So does Cancer. Is that a disticnt entity that deserves to live?

Their own heartbeat, nervous system, body, their own ... everything? You're saying they don't have this until almost six months????

I'm saying all of those things are completely dependent on the fetus' host until that point. Which makes it not independent. That's rather the point of viability.

Cancer is a mutation of the mother's (or whoevers) cells. A pre-born human is created from mother's egg, father's sperm bringing into existence a new, never before made human being.

I didn't ask about dependency I asked about distinct entity. Its own dna, nervous system, heartbeat. You still sticking with six months? Cause I'll laugh my ass off at you again.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It's a choice between two sets of humans, not between a human and something else. That's been my point the whole time, that we place value on people all the time, but it doesn't alter their humanity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for stating it so accurately and succinctly.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

Mod Edit: Czernobog --- In the future, if your tale has a source -- you need to credit it.
Believe the source for this one is something like

Man confronts anti-abortion debaters with one question | Daily Mail Online

Dear Czernobog I'm disappointed as I know you can set this up better.
This has a major hole in it:

the boy who is older has a GREATER CHANCE of surviving
than just the embryos. So a first responder in this situation
would try to get the boy out, based on Probability of living.

You'd have to set it up better than this if you want
to focus solely on the "value" of life, instead of chances of living being
a variable or factor in the equation.

Close, please refine this and I trust you could make the point you intend.
Thanks Czernobog

(Another side factor is the older boy has a greater chance of having
currently existing and established family relations and more people who will miss the boy,
so their relationships become an added factor and motivation; while the embryos have a lower chance of having established relationships that would be affected if they disintegrated in the fire)

 

[Czernobog]

What moral calculus? A crying child needs help. A quiet child can take direction. You can tell him to run out of the now open door while you grab the vials and get them out.

Just because he is standing there paralysed with fear, not screaming, you think he can "take direction". Really??? Like everyone else, you are just trying to find a way to change the parameters to prevent you from having to make a choice.

Tell you what. You want a change that doesn't require a fear response. Here you go, in one corner of the room - that is to large to reach each corner in time, mind you - is a sleeping baby, and in the other is a cold box labelled 1,000 embryos. There you go. Now you don't have the "terrified screaming" of the child to sway your emotion. Choose.

See, now you're trying to change the parameters. I thought you didn't want to do that. Anyway, that's easy. You save the one that experiences pain and suffers, then mourn over the many that will never get the opportunity to grow and thrive

Okay. So your moral caclulation is interesting. The ability to fell pain creates a higher moral value, and responsibility. Okay. My calculus would have been slightly different, but would have arrived at the same conclusion.

You see, you thought that by getting me to say that an unborn baby embryo without a functioning brain doesn't suffer I would be saying that the unborn embryo is less than human and can be safely tossed in the trash. Again, the reaction doesn't define the humanity of those not saved, any more than saving a sleeping baby instead of an adult in a persistent vegetative state makes the adult any less human.

Not the humanity, the moral value. And it certainly does. You did decide that the embryos were of less moral value, and could simply be "tossed in the trash" during the clean up after the fire. Otherwise you would have saved them.

You can keep denying this all you like, but your reaction demonstrates that you do not, regardless of your dihonest attempts to suggest otherwise, assign the same relative moral value to an embryo that you do to an actual baby, or child.

It's a choice between two sets of humans, not between a human and something else. That's been my point the whole time, that we place value on people all the time, but it doesn't alter their humanity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can... you know what? I'm not bothering. You are a liar. And you know you are a liar. If an embryo is morally equivalent to a child, then a thousand embryos has a thousand times more value than a single child. So, prove you mean your bullshit, and say that you would save the phial, and let the child burn.

Otherwise give up your bullshit.

 

[Czernobog]

Dear Czernobog I'm disappointed as I know you can set this up better.
This has a major hole in it:

the boy who is older has a GREATER CHANCE of surviving
than just the embryos. So a first responder in this situation
would try to get the boy out, based on Probability of living.

You'd have to set it up better than this if you want
to focus solely on the "value" of life, instead of chances of living being
a variable or factor in the equation.

Close, please refine this and I trust you could make the point you intend.
Thanks Czernobog

If we were speaking with only first responders, I might agree with you. However, I am not a first responder, and that would not enter into my calculation. I doubt it would anyone else's who was not a first responder, but I thank you for your input.

(Another side factor is the older boy has a greater chance of having
currently existing and established family relations and more people who will miss the boy,
so their relationships become an added factor and motivation; while the embryos have a lower chance of having established relationships that would be affected if they disintegrated in the fire)

Which is only further evidence of the greater moral value of the child, wouldn't you say, emilynghiem ?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Czernobog I'm disappointed as I know you can set this up better.
This has a major hole in it:

the boy who is older has a GREATER CHANCE of surviving
than just the embryos. So a first responder in this situation
would try to get the boy out, based on Probability of living.

You'd have to set it up better than this if you want
to focus solely on the "value" of life, instead of chances of living being
a variable or factor in the equation.

Close, please refine this and I trust you could make the point you intend.
Thanks Czernobog

If we were speaking with only first responders, I might agree with you. However, I am not a first responder, and that would not enter into my calculation. I doubt it would anyone else's who was not a first responder, but I thank you for your input.

(Another side factor is the older boy has a greater chance of having
currently existing and established family relations and more people who will miss the boy,
so their relationships become an added factor and motivation; while the embryos have a lower chance of having established relationships that would be affected if they disintegrated in the fire)

Which is only further evidence of the greater moral value of the child, wouldn't you say, emilynghiem ?

I don't think it is a "moral" value but a personal/relative call.
purely subjective and depends on feelings and what makes us feel better or worse.

And the same decision might not necessarily be made for one boy as another boy,
or one person as another, because it depends on those particular people in that situation
which way people might choose to prioritize.

What about this example, Czernobog
in 9/11 when people were evacuating the towers,
one person collapsed in the stair well and just couldn't go on.
this person understood others would leave in order to save their own lives.

but ONE person made the decision to stay in the stairwell with this person,
knowing that meant TWO people would die instead of only one.

If it was any other two people, maybe they wouldn't have made that decision,
but these two people did.

That person felt it was more important not to leave a suffering
soul to die alone but to know they were loved enough to stay, even if it meant dying,
and that feeling of love was more important, that "feeling" of not being abandoned
and suffering to be left by others and die alone,
as part of QUALITY of life and relationships
rather than just the quantity of life, the length of time or the number of lives.

so if it's quality and feeling, what makes us feel
life matters, if that is what motivates people
then it isn't just clinical life and death or
measuring lives by external factors.

Some people have chosen to die with another person
rather than be separated or feel isolated/abandoned.
Some people choose the opposite, and abandon someone to die
in order to save their own life.

There are other factors involved Czernobog
which I would call "spiritual" but perhaps you'd call it emotional or psychological.

 

[Chuz Life]

Now, Bonzi , if you are still anti-abortion, and want to make the argument why your position should be codified into law, then by all means do so. Just stop doing it by dishonestly trying to draw a moral equivalence between a fetus, and a child.

You are trying to build on a false premise.

There is no need to draw a moral equivalence between a child which is in the fetal stage of their life and any other child.

A child is a child.

By any other name, it is still a child.

The false premise is yours. If you believed that, then instead of trying so hard to find some way to avoid answering the question presented, you would simply say that you would save the thousand children (embryos), and demonstrate how silly I'm being. But, I notice that you aren't willing to do that. That is because you know that an embryo isn't the same thing as a child.

We have fetal HOMICIDE laws already to make the killing of a child in the womb in a criminal act - a crime of MURDER.

Your attempt to paint children in the womb as being unworthy of any consideration for equal rights has already been largely defeated.

 

[emilynghiem]

Now, Bonzi , if you are still anti-abortion, and want to make the argument why your position should be codified into law, then by all means do so. Just stop doing it by dishonestly trying to draw a moral equivalence between a fetus, and a child.

You are trying to build on a false premise.

There is no need to draw a moral equivalence between a child which is in the fetal stage of their life and any other child.

A child is a child.

By any other name, it is still a child.

The false premise is yours. If you believed that, then instead of trying so hard to find some way to avoid answering the question presented, you would simply say that you would save the thousand children (embryos), and demonstrate how silly I'm being. But, I notice that you aren't willing to do that. That is because you know that an embryo isn't the same thing as a child.

We have fetal HOMICIDE laws already to make the killing of a child in the womb in a criminal act - a crime of MURDER.

Your attempt to paint children in the womb as being unworthy of any consideration for equal rights has already been largely defeated.

Okay Chuz Life and what about embryo's outside the womb?
The example refers to embryos.
Do you treat them as you would children in the womb and children already born and living independently.