It is certainly true that those who support abortion are monsters...

[Cecilie1200]

do human fetus's turn into humans? It's a simple question. can you answer?

It is only a simple question to simple minds. It is not even the right question. The right question is WHEN does it become a human being. There are those who believe sperm are human beings and thereby even the use of condoms is murder . Where do YOU draw the line,??

No one, at least no one I know, believes that sperm are human beings. If they do, they shouldn’t be part of this conversation. If you actually think this is a legit argument...you also should not be part of the conversation. They are gametes. Again, a question that science answered a long time ago.

Dear god, where the hell did y’all receive your educations on this middle school level biology type of stuff? Demand a refund or stop wasting time on here and devote the rest of you life to fixing the education system, because it clearly failed you.

Yo Bubba, I did not say that I believed that sperm was human life. I said that there are those who believe that , and your claiming otherwise just exposes your ignorance.

Are Sperm and Egg Cells Alive?

You also ignorantly claimed recently that no one is opposed to contraception

BBC - Ethics - Contraception: Moral case against contraception

Pope reaffirms Church opposition to contraception

Wake the fuck up. And if you are awake, stop lying

Learn the difference between "lying" and "being able to actually read". None of your links suggest that the writers believe sperm are living organisms, you illiterate dimwit.

well sure they are alive how else do they think a reproductive system works? really?

I didn't say "alive". I said "living organism".

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's true. Too bad you are willing to change the words and meanings when it suits you.

Nope. Never. I am perfectly willing to tell you that I think what you're saying is bullshit, though.

Again, if you think the statement you put in quotes means the same thing as what I actually posted, you have an unusual definition for the phrase 'rather than'.

Thinking my opinions are bullshit is very different from trying to change the meaning of what I say, and that is what you did, whether you want to admit it or not.

Oh, for pity's sakes. If settling this will get you to quit wasting everyone's time yammering on about how ill-used and mistreated you've been, as though it's relevant to the topic and anyone gives a shit anyway, then fine.

This is what you said:

"Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one."

This is what I said you said:

"This is philosophical rather than scientific".

Now, if you really want to tell us how I've "egregiously" twisted and changed what you said, please feel free to get it off your chest so that we can all move on to talking about something that ACTUALLY interests us.

If you want to piss and moan about how you've been "misquoted" based on my expressing an opinion that you want the abortion debate to be subjective rather than objective, then please state that clearly now, so that I can dismiss you as a whiny drama queen and stop paying attention to you as though you might have something worthwhile to say.

Either way, please finish venting your feewings, and stop boring me.

I say I've been misquoted based solely on the way you misquoted me.

Dismiss me as a drama queen if you want to. You still changed what I said, then claimed you did not.

In what I actually said, abortion is more philosophical than scientific, but science still plays a part. In the false quote you attributed to me, science plays no part. But you go on complaining about my not just blithely accepting you changing what I said.

The abortion debate is inherently subjective. One can (and should) base their opinion on objective facts, but it is still a subjective opinion in the end. What value an individual places on a life is subjective.

well I don't care what anyone says, abortion is killing. can't say anything else. there is something alive that is killed. game set match. so they are killers.

I think Montrovant thinks he's going to make some brilliant, incisive argument about how it's killing, but it's okay to kill them, because it's only your personal opinion that killing is wrong.

Who the hell knows? He spends so damned much time quibbling and nattering and whining about utter irrelevancies, it's entirely possible he's just playing the time-honored leftist game of "Deflect and obstruct until you run out the clock", the clock in this case being the amount of time a rational adult is willing to attempt to make a dishonest moron behave like another rational adult.

 

[jc456]

It is only a simple question to simple minds. It is not even the right question. The right question is WHEN does it become a human being. There are those who believe sperm are human beings and thereby even the use of condoms is murder . Where do YOU draw the line,??

No one, at least no one I know, believes that sperm are human beings. If they do, they shouldn’t be part of this conversation. If you actually think this is a legit argument...you also should not be part of the conversation. They are gametes. Again, a question that science answered a long time ago.

Dear god, where the hell did y’all receive your educations on this middle school level biology type of stuff? Demand a refund or stop wasting time on here and devote the rest of you life to fixing the education system, because it clearly failed you.

Yo Bubba, I did not say that I believed that sperm was human life. I said that there are those who believe that , and your claiming otherwise just exposes your ignorance.

Are Sperm and Egg Cells Alive?

You also ignorantly claimed recently that no one is opposed to contraception

BBC - Ethics - Contraception: Moral case against contraception

Pope reaffirms Church opposition to contraception

Wake the fuck up. And if you are awake, stop lying

Learn the difference between "lying" and "being able to actually read". None of your links suggest that the writers believe sperm are living organisms, you illiterate dimwit.

well sure they are alive how else do they think a reproductive system works? really?

I didn't say "alive". I said "living organism".

isn't living another word for alive? It was meant for you you to have to answer. it was just a statement on your post.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No one, at least no one I know, believes that sperm are human beings. If they do, they shouldn’t be part of this conversation. If you actually think this is a legit argument...you also should not be part of the conversation. They are gametes. Again, a question that science answered a long time ago.

Dear god, where the hell did y’all receive your educations on this middle school level biology type of stuff? Demand a refund or stop wasting time on here and devote the rest of you life to fixing the education system, because it clearly failed you.

Yo Bubba, I did not say that I believed that sperm was human life. I said that there are those who believe that , and your claiming otherwise just exposes your ignorance.

Are Sperm and Egg Cells Alive?

You also ignorantly claimed recently that no one is opposed to contraception

BBC - Ethics - Contraception: Moral case against contraception

Pope reaffirms Church opposition to contraception

Wake the fuck up. And if you are awake, stop lying

Learn the difference between "lying" and "being able to actually read". None of your links suggest that the writers believe sperm are living organisms, you illiterate dimwit.

well sure they are alive how else do they think a reproductive system works? really?

I didn't say "alive". I said "living organism".

isn't living another word for alive? It was meant for you you to have to answer. it was just a statement on your post.

Not necessarily, no. My heart is living tissue, a living organ in fact; it is not, however, a living organism. That's the difference.

Likewise, sperm and ova are living cells, but they are not separate, living organisms. They are just parts of an organism. A fetus, on the other hand, is a living organism, separate and indistinct. Which is why the leftist attempt at cleverness by saying, "Well, then, if you consider a fetus alive, you have to stop masturbating! Your'e killing sperm!" achieves nothing but to make them look like they failed 6th grade biology class.

 

[Montrovant]

That's true. Too bad you are willing to change the words and meanings when it suits you.

Nope. Never. I am perfectly willing to tell you that I think what you're saying is bullshit, though.

Again, if you think the statement you put in quotes means the same thing as what I actually posted, you have an unusual definition for the phrase 'rather than'.

Thinking my opinions are bullshit is very different from trying to change the meaning of what I say, and that is what you did, whether you want to admit it or not.

Oh, for pity's sakes. If settling this will get you to quit wasting everyone's time yammering on about how ill-used and mistreated you've been, as though it's relevant to the topic and anyone gives a shit anyway, then fine.

This is what you said:

"Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one."

This is what I said you said:

"This is philosophical rather than scientific".

Now, if you really want to tell us how I've "egregiously" twisted and changed what you said, please feel free to get it off your chest so that we can all move on to talking about something that ACTUALLY interests us.

If you want to piss and moan about how you've been "misquoted" based on my expressing an opinion that you want the abortion debate to be subjective rather than objective, then please state that clearly now, so that I can dismiss you as a whiny drama queen and stop paying attention to you as though you might have something worthwhile to say.

Either way, please finish venting your feewings, and stop boring me.

I say I've been misquoted based solely on the way you misquoted me.

Dismiss me as a drama queen if you want to. You still changed what I said, then claimed you did not.

In what I actually said, abortion is more philosophical than scientific, but science still plays a part. In the false quote you attributed to me, science plays no part. But you go on complaining about my not just blithely accepting you changing what I said.

The abortion debate is inherently subjective. One can (and should) base their opinion on objective facts, but it is still a subjective opinion in the end. What value an individual places on a life is subjective.

well I don't care what anyone says, abortion is killing. can't say anything else. there is something alive that is killed. game set match. so they are killers.

I certainly wasn't trying to argue that that opinion is wrong. I hope I haven't given the impression I was doing so.

 

[Montrovant]

The answer does not matter to my point. Again, I'm not trying to argue the correct morality, just that the judgement is about morality. Whether someone believes it is or is not OK to end life sustaining treatment is a moral judgement and one that can be made without ignoring science either way.

But the answers matters to the immediate question that would obviously follow your point. It also matters to the overall debate. Questions on life and death, human rights, etc, shouldn’t be placed anywhere near the realm of it’s just a “potAto potoughto” issue. They need to be answered.

As I've said, I am only arguing a narrow point here. I don't want to debate the morality of abortion. It is one of the more pointless arguments to engage in.

So you’re just here to point out the obvious, that’s there’s different views, and those views generally involve some type of morals? Not the actual moral debate? People don’t usually argue from a standpoint that is devoid of morality. It seems here you want to forfeit the 5th to make a point, then plead it when challenged.

If you'll go back, you'll see that this whole discussion (with me, not the thread, obviously), began when I responded to a statement that whether a fetus is alive is the only question. It's also been at least implied, if not directly stated, that the abortion issue has been decided by science, as though a moral judgement cannot be made in the face of current human reproductive and developmental knowledge. I have been trying to limit my participation to those things since.

Yes I know that. The point of disagreement is you seem to imply that because opposing sides can make moral arguments neither is false or correct. It’s a post-modernist stance you seem to be taking. Post-modernism is fine up until it gets to the point that because there are different interpretations, none is better than the other, it’s all just a power game being played.

Well, I think I'd put it more that none of the moral arguments are objectively correct, but I'm not trying to argue that, either.

I started this trying to argue that the way the arguments are put is important. Saying that the only question to answer is whether a fetus is alive or not basically dismisses any opinion that accepts a fetus as alive yet still favors any legal abortion. It's not discussing, or even arguing, it's making a declaration which doesn't allow for any other viewpoint. If the point is to discuss or argue, it is likely to make any such discussion or argument much harder to come by IMO.

 

[Montrovant]

"Never mind the facts. I say you did it, because I say you did it." Noted, dismissed, and forgotten as the bullshit whining that it is.

That's a pretty good description of how you decided I was assuming all the points and questions were about me.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about when you mis-quoted me, the facts are pretty easy to see. There are two quotes, which are different, and hold different meanings.

Moving on, abortion is not subjective, unless you'd like to surrender any and all claim to the idea that your own life is inherently valuable and worthy of protection regardless of whether or not a single other person on this planet gives a rat's fart if you exist. Where you're going wrong is that you want to pretend to believe that morality itself is just an opinion. It is not. That is a falsehood people tell themselves when they want to behave badly and still tell themselves they're actually good people.

Are you saying there is only one true morality?

 

[Cecilie1200]

But the answers matters to the immediate question that would obviously follow your point. It also matters to the overall debate. Questions on life and death, human rights, etc, shouldn’t be placed anywhere near the realm of it’s just a “potAto potoughto” issue. They need to be answered.

As I've said, I am only arguing a narrow point here. I don't want to debate the morality of abortion. It is one of the more pointless arguments to engage in.

So you’re just here to point out the obvious, that’s there’s different views, and those views generally involve some type of morals? Not the actual moral debate? People don’t usually argue from a standpoint that is devoid of morality. It seems here you want to forfeit the 5th to make a point, then plead it when challenged.

If you'll go back, you'll see that this whole discussion (with me, not the thread, obviously), began when I responded to a statement that whether a fetus is alive is the only question. It's also been at least implied, if not directly stated, that the abortion issue has been decided by science, as though a moral judgement cannot be made in the face of current human reproductive and developmental knowledge. I have been trying to limit my participation to those things since.

Yes I know that. The point of disagreement is you seem to imply that because opposing sides can make moral arguments neither is false or correct. It’s a post-modernist stance you seem to be taking. Post-modernism is fine up until it gets to the point that because there are different interpretations, none is better than the other, it’s all just a power game being played.

Well, I think I'd put it more that none of the moral arguments are objectively correct, but I'm not trying to argue that, either.

I started this trying to argue that the way the arguments are put is important. Saying that the only question to answer is whether a fetus is alive or not basically dismisses any opinion that accepts a fetus as alive yet still favors any legal abortion. It's not discussing, or even arguing, it's making a declaration which doesn't allow for any other viewpoint. If the point is to discuss or argue, it is likely to make any such discussion or argument much harder to come by IMO.

I personally am planning to dismiss any argument that says, "Yes, that is a living infant, and I still think we should kill him if he's inconvenient." I do not wish to talk to anyone who does not dismiss that as evil and unacceptable. I wish to run far, far away from such people, because they are dangerous.

 

[Montrovant]

As I've said, I am only arguing a narrow point here. I don't want to debate the morality of abortion. It is one of the more pointless arguments to engage in.

So you’re just here to point out the obvious, that’s there’s different views, and those views generally involve some type of morals? Not the actual moral debate? People don’t usually argue from a standpoint that is devoid of morality. It seems here you want to forfeit the 5th to make a point, then plead it when challenged.

If you'll go back, you'll see that this whole discussion (with me, not the thread, obviously), began when I responded to a statement that whether a fetus is alive is the only question. It's also been at least implied, if not directly stated, that the abortion issue has been decided by science, as though a moral judgement cannot be made in the face of current human reproductive and developmental knowledge. I have been trying to limit my participation to those things since.

Yes I know that. The point of disagreement is you seem to imply that because opposing sides can make moral arguments neither is false or correct. It’s a post-modernist stance you seem to be taking. Post-modernism is fine up until it gets to the point that because there are different interpretations, none is better than the other, it’s all just a power game being played.

Well, I think I'd put it more that none of the moral arguments are objectively correct, but I'm not trying to argue that, either.

I started this trying to argue that the way the arguments are put is important. Saying that the only question to answer is whether a fetus is alive or not basically dismisses any opinion that accepts a fetus as alive yet still favors any legal abortion. It's not discussing, or even arguing, it's making a declaration which doesn't allow for any other viewpoint. If the point is to discuss or argue, it is likely to make any such discussion or argument much harder to come by IMO.

I personally am planning to dismiss any argument that says, "Yes, that is a living infant, and I still think we should kill him if he's inconvenient." I do not wish to talk to anyone who does not dismiss that as evil and unacceptable. I wish to run far, far away from such people, because they are dangerous.

I imagine the argument that infants should be killed is even less common than the argument that a sperm is a separate living organism, but I completely understand not wanting to talk to anyone pushing it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Moving on, abortion is not subjective, unless you'd like to surrender any and all claim to the idea that your own life is inherently valuable and worthy of protection regardless of whether or not a single other person on this planet gives a rat's fart if you exist. Where you're going wrong is that you want to pretend to believe that morality itself is just an opinion. It is not. That is a falsehood people tell themselves when they want to behave badly and still tell themselves they're actually good people.

Are you saying there is only one true morality?

Yes. There is a core, bedrock morality that all sane people understand, whether they want to admit it or not. Different groups add their own touches to it and apply it to different situations their own way, and certainly people try to deny it when it suits them, but they still know it. Just try violating it when it harms THEM, and see how fast they are to bring it up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you’re just here to point out the obvious, that’s there’s different views, and those views generally involve some type of morals? Not the actual moral debate? People don’t usually argue from a standpoint that is devoid of morality. It seems here you want to forfeit the 5th to make a point, then plead it when challenged.

If you'll go back, you'll see that this whole discussion (with me, not the thread, obviously), began when I responded to a statement that whether a fetus is alive is the only question. It's also been at least implied, if not directly stated, that the abortion issue has been decided by science, as though a moral judgement cannot be made in the face of current human reproductive and developmental knowledge. I have been trying to limit my participation to those things since.

Yes I know that. The point of disagreement is you seem to imply that because opposing sides can make moral arguments neither is false or correct. It’s a post-modernist stance you seem to be taking. Post-modernism is fine up until it gets to the point that because there are different interpretations, none is better than the other, it’s all just a power game being played.

Well, I think I'd put it more that none of the moral arguments are objectively correct, but I'm not trying to argue that, either.

I started this trying to argue that the way the arguments are put is important. Saying that the only question to answer is whether a fetus is alive or not basically dismisses any opinion that accepts a fetus as alive yet still favors any legal abortion. It's not discussing, or even arguing, it's making a declaration which doesn't allow for any other viewpoint. If the point is to discuss or argue, it is likely to make any such discussion or argument much harder to come by IMO.

I personally am planning to dismiss any argument that says, "Yes, that is a living infant, and I still think we should kill him if he's inconvenient." I do not wish to talk to anyone who does not dismiss that as evil and unacceptable. I wish to run far, far away from such people, because they are dangerous.

I imagine the argument that infants should be killed is even less common than the argument that a sperm is a separate living organism, but I completely understand not wanting to talk to anyone pushing it.

Of course it is, because it's abhorrent and marks you as the sort of evil that causes invocations of Godwin's Law. However, making that argument is the only intellectually honest, in-line-with-embryonic-science way that you can advocate for abortion.

Which is why pro-life people are forced to spend a lot of time nailing Jell-O to the wall in the form of getting pro-aborts to quit dodging the topic of whether or not a fetus is a living human organism.

 

[sakinago]

But the answers matters to the immediate question that would obviously follow your point. It also matters to the overall debate. Questions on life and death, human rights, etc, shouldn’t be placed anywhere near the realm of it’s just a “potAto potoughto” issue. They need to be answered.

As I've said, I am only arguing a narrow point here. I don't want to debate the morality of abortion. It is one of the more pointless arguments to engage in.

So you’re just here to point out the obvious, that’s there’s different views, and those views generally involve some type of morals? Not the actual moral debate? People don’t usually argue from a standpoint that is devoid of morality. It seems here you want to forfeit the 5th to make a point, then plead it when challenged.

If you'll go back, you'll see that this whole discussion (with me, not the thread, obviously), began when I responded to a statement that whether a fetus is alive is the only question. It's also been at least implied, if not directly stated, that the abortion issue has been decided by science, as though a moral judgement cannot be made in the face of current human reproductive and developmental knowledge. I have been trying to limit my participation to those things since.

Yes I know that. The point of disagreement is you seem to imply that because opposing sides can make moral arguments neither is false or correct. It’s a post-modernist stance you seem to be taking. Post-modernism is fine up until it gets to the point that because there are different interpretations, none is better than the other, it’s all just a power game being played.

Well, I think I'd put it more that none of the moral arguments are objectively correct, but I'm not trying to argue that, either.

I started this trying to argue that the way the arguments are put is important. Saying that the only question to answer is whether a fetus is alive or not basically dismisses any opinion that accepts a fetus as alive yet still favors any legal abortion. It's not discussing, or even arguing, it's making a declaration which doesn't allow for any other viewpoint. If the point is to discuss or argue, it is likely to make any such discussion or argument much harder to come by IMO.

Well then you missed my point many times. I stated over and over, that the rest of the discussion was secondary to the question of life and death. Not much of a point in discussing ways to curb murder if it hasn’t even been established that murder is right or wrong and is still legal. It’s even worse to flat out ignore that question right off the bat. In the abortion discussion, you can’t skip to the “y’all don’t care about life if y’all don’t do XYZ” when the other side is having a totally different conversation on the fact that they think you’re killing babies. It’s a dishonest line of reasoning not intended to get anywhere, because it’s a distractionary red herring, that also allows the person to strawman someone on secondary issues (secondary is a forgiving term in this case).

One side says “abortion is wrong and here’s why.” The other side instead doesn’t respond with, no it’s ok, here’s why, they respond with “you don’t care about life, because you don’t care about XYZ.” Now the first side has to respond to a non response on, what was it, like 6 different issues like housing and food stamps? That’s the absurdity of what we’re dealing with here, and that’s it’s important to stay on topic.

 

[Montrovant]

As I've said, I am only arguing a narrow point here. I don't want to debate the morality of abortion. It is one of the more pointless arguments to engage in.

So you’re just here to point out the obvious, that’s there’s different views, and those views generally involve some type of morals? Not the actual moral debate? People don’t usually argue from a standpoint that is devoid of morality. It seems here you want to forfeit the 5th to make a point, then plead it when challenged.

If you'll go back, you'll see that this whole discussion (with me, not the thread, obviously), began when I responded to a statement that whether a fetus is alive is the only question. It's also been at least implied, if not directly stated, that the abortion issue has been decided by science, as though a moral judgement cannot be made in the face of current human reproductive and developmental knowledge. I have been trying to limit my participation to those things since.

Yes I know that. The point of disagreement is you seem to imply that because opposing sides can make moral arguments neither is false or correct. It’s a post-modernist stance you seem to be taking. Post-modernism is fine up until it gets to the point that because there are different interpretations, none is better than the other, it’s all just a power game being played.

Well, I think I'd put it more that none of the moral arguments are objectively correct, but I'm not trying to argue that, either.

I started this trying to argue that the way the arguments are put is important. Saying that the only question to answer is whether a fetus is alive or not basically dismisses any opinion that accepts a fetus as alive yet still favors any legal abortion. It's not discussing, or even arguing, it's making a declaration which doesn't allow for any other viewpoint. If the point is to discuss or argue, it is likely to make any such discussion or argument much harder to come by IMO.

Well then you missed my point many times. I stated over and over, that the rest of the discussion was secondary to the question of life and death. Not much of a point in discussing ways to curb murder if it hasn’t even been established that murder is right or wrong and is still legal. It’s even worse to flat out ignore that question right off the bat. In the abortion discussion, you can’t skip to the “y’all don’t care about life if y’all don’t do XYZ” when the other side is having a totally different conversation on the fact that they think you’re killing babies. It’s a dishonest line of reasoning not intended to get anywhere, because it’s a distractionary red herring, that also allows the person to strawman someone on secondary issues (secondary is a forgiving term in this case).

One side says “abortion is wrong and here’s why.” The other side instead doesn’t respond with, no it’s ok, here’s why, they respond with “you don’t care about life, because you don’t care about XYZ.” Now the first side has to respond to a non response on, what was it, like 6 different issues like housing and food stamps? That’s the absurdity of what we’re dealing with here, and that’s it’s important to stay on topic.

I think both 'sides' often do that sort of thing, actually, but you're right, plenty of people go into the "Well why don't you care about them after they are born?" kind of argument.

I've said before that one of the big reasons I think abortion arguments are so often pointless is that the people arguing can be unwilling or unable to acknowledge the perspective of the other side. I don't mean anyone needs to accept the validity of another's opinion, but the arguments too often are framed in ways that almost cannot be responded to; if a person believes abortion is murder, how can someone else argue "if you don't like it, don't do it"? If a person believes a newly fertilized egg is not yet a person, what response will they have if someone else says they believe in killing babies?

Most arguments could do with more groundwork, more clarity in the sides agreeing just what is in contention. I think that is magnified with abortion because of the nature of the contention.

 

[Montrovant]

If you'll go back, you'll see that this whole discussion (with me, not the thread, obviously), began when I responded to a statement that whether a fetus is alive is the only question. It's also been at least implied, if not directly stated, that the abortion issue has been decided by science, as though a moral judgement cannot be made in the face of current human reproductive and developmental knowledge. I have been trying to limit my participation to those things since.

Yes I know that. The point of disagreement is you seem to imply that because opposing sides can make moral arguments neither is false or correct. It’s a post-modernist stance you seem to be taking. Post-modernism is fine up until it gets to the point that because there are different interpretations, none is better than the other, it’s all just a power game being played.

Well, I think I'd put it more that none of the moral arguments are objectively correct, but I'm not trying to argue that, either.

I started this trying to argue that the way the arguments are put is important. Saying that the only question to answer is whether a fetus is alive or not basically dismisses any opinion that accepts a fetus as alive yet still favors any legal abortion. It's not discussing, or even arguing, it's making a declaration which doesn't allow for any other viewpoint. If the point is to discuss or argue, it is likely to make any such discussion or argument much harder to come by IMO.

I personally am planning to dismiss any argument that says, "Yes, that is a living infant, and I still think we should kill him if he's inconvenient." I do not wish to talk to anyone who does not dismiss that as evil and unacceptable. I wish to run far, far away from such people, because they are dangerous.

I imagine the argument that infants should be killed is even less common than the argument that a sperm is a separate living organism, but I completely understand not wanting to talk to anyone pushing it.

Of course it is, because it's abhorrent and marks you as the sort of evil that causes invocations of Godwin's Law. However, making that argument is the only intellectually honest, in-line-with-embryonic-science way that you can advocate for abortion.

Which is why pro-life people are forced to spend a lot of time nailing Jell-O to the wall in the form of getting pro-aborts to quit dodging the topic of whether or not a fetus is a living human organism.

Why is the argument that killing infants is acceptable the only intellectually honest way someone can advocate for abortion? That seems to be assuming there is only one kind of reasoning possible for an acceptance of abortion: that a fetus is not a separate human life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes I know that. The point of disagreement is you seem to imply that because opposing sides can make moral arguments neither is false or correct. It’s a post-modernist stance you seem to be taking. Post-modernism is fine up until it gets to the point that because there are different interpretations, none is better than the other, it’s all just a power game being played.

Well, I think I'd put it more that none of the moral arguments are objectively correct, but I'm not trying to argue that, either.

I started this trying to argue that the way the arguments are put is important. Saying that the only question to answer is whether a fetus is alive or not basically dismisses any opinion that accepts a fetus as alive yet still favors any legal abortion. It's not discussing, or even arguing, it's making a declaration which doesn't allow for any other viewpoint. If the point is to discuss or argue, it is likely to make any such discussion or argument much harder to come by IMO.

I personally am planning to dismiss any argument that says, "Yes, that is a living infant, and I still think we should kill him if he's inconvenient." I do not wish to talk to anyone who does not dismiss that as evil and unacceptable. I wish to run far, far away from such people, because they are dangerous.

I imagine the argument that infants should be killed is even less common than the argument that a sperm is a separate living organism, but I completely understand not wanting to talk to anyone pushing it.

Of course it is, because it's abhorrent and marks you as the sort of evil that causes invocations of Godwin's Law. However, making that argument is the only intellectually honest, in-line-with-embryonic-science way that you can advocate for abortion.

Which is why pro-life people are forced to spend a lot of time nailing Jell-O to the wall in the form of getting pro-aborts to quit dodging the topic of whether or not a fetus is a living human organism.

Why is the argument that killing infants is acceptable the only intellectually honest way someone can advocate for abortion? That seems to be assuming there is only one kind of reasoning possible for an acceptance of abortion: that a fetus is not a separate human life.

Because when you're advocating for abortion, you're advocating killing babies. Intellectual honesty would require you to admit that, which means if you're STILL going to advocate for abortion, you are essentially saying, "Killing babies is okay." Again, this is why people advocating for abortion start side-stepping like the cast of "Riverdance" when it comes to the question of life.

If you see another option that is intellectually honest - ie. recognizes and acknowledges the facts of medical science - then by all means, point it out.

 

[Montrovant]

Well, I think I'd put it more that none of the moral arguments are objectively correct, but I'm not trying to argue that, either.

I started this trying to argue that the way the arguments are put is important. Saying that the only question to answer is whether a fetus is alive or not basically dismisses any opinion that accepts a fetus as alive yet still favors any legal abortion. It's not discussing, or even arguing, it's making a declaration which doesn't allow for any other viewpoint. If the point is to discuss or argue, it is likely to make any such discussion or argument much harder to come by IMO.

I personally am planning to dismiss any argument that says, "Yes, that is a living infant, and I still think we should kill him if he's inconvenient." I do not wish to talk to anyone who does not dismiss that as evil and unacceptable. I wish to run far, far away from such people, because they are dangerous.

I imagine the argument that infants should be killed is even less common than the argument that a sperm is a separate living organism, but I completely understand not wanting to talk to anyone pushing it.

Of course it is, because it's abhorrent and marks you as the sort of evil that causes invocations of Godwin's Law. However, making that argument is the only intellectually honest, in-line-with-embryonic-science way that you can advocate for abortion.

Which is why pro-life people are forced to spend a lot of time nailing Jell-O to the wall in the form of getting pro-aborts to quit dodging the topic of whether or not a fetus is a living human organism.

Why is the argument that killing infants is acceptable the only intellectually honest way someone can advocate for abortion? That seems to be assuming there is only one kind of reasoning possible for an acceptance of abortion: that a fetus is not a separate human life.

Because when you're advocating for abortion, you're advocating killing babies. Intellectual honesty would require you to admit that, which means if you're STILL going to advocate for abortion, you are essentially saying, "Killing babies is okay." Again, this is why people advocating for abortion start side-stepping like the cast of "Riverdance" when it comes to the question of life.

If you see another option that is intellectually honest - ie. recognizes and acknowledges the facts of medical science - then by all means, point it out.

Baby seems to be more of a colloquial term than a medical one. If the intellectual dishonesty you see is based on medical science, would it not be more accurate to say that abortion is killing an embryo or a fetus? Even outside of medical terminology, baby is often defined as a newborn/infant after birth. To give a couple of examples, here's the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary definition of baby: Definition of BABY
Here's the Cambridge Dictionary definition of baby: baby Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Some online medical dictionaries only seem to have the word baby as part of a phrase, such as baby teeth or baby blues. So if you are going to argue about medical science, I don't know that abortion equaling killing babies is accurate.

This is a good example of my point. You are saying that it is intellectually dishonest to advocate abortion without admitting to killing babies, which denies the possibility that someone can honestly consider a fetus or embryo something other than a baby. As usual, I'm not trying to argue against your view on abortion, I'm just pointing out that someone can have a different view without having to ignore any science or lie to themselves.

 

[sakinago]

So you’re just here to point out the obvious, that’s there’s different views, and those views generally involve some type of morals? Not the actual moral debate? People don’t usually argue from a standpoint that is devoid of morality. It seems here you want to forfeit the 5th to make a point, then plead it when challenged.

If you'll go back, you'll see that this whole discussion (with me, not the thread, obviously), began when I responded to a statement that whether a fetus is alive is the only question. It's also been at least implied, if not directly stated, that the abortion issue has been decided by science, as though a moral judgement cannot be made in the face of current human reproductive and developmental knowledge. I have been trying to limit my participation to those things since.

Yes I know that. The point of disagreement is you seem to imply that because opposing sides can make moral arguments neither is false or correct. It’s a post-modernist stance you seem to be taking. Post-modernism is fine up until it gets to the point that because there are different interpretations, none is better than the other, it’s all just a power game being played.

Well, I think I'd put it more that none of the moral arguments are objectively correct, but I'm not trying to argue that, either.

I started this trying to argue that the way the arguments are put is important. Saying that the only question to answer is whether a fetus is alive or not basically dismisses any opinion that accepts a fetus as alive yet still favors any legal abortion. It's not discussing, or even arguing, it's making a declaration which doesn't allow for any other viewpoint. If the point is to discuss or argue, it is likely to make any such discussion or argument much harder to come by IMO.

Well then you missed my point many times. I stated over and over, that the rest of the discussion was secondary to the question of life and death. Not much of a point in discussing ways to curb murder if it hasn’t even been established that murder is right or wrong and is still legal. It’s even worse to flat out ignore that question right off the bat. In the abortion discussion, you can’t skip to the “y’all don’t care about life if y’all don’t do XYZ” when the other side is having a totally different conversation on the fact that they think you’re killing babies. It’s a dishonest line of reasoning not intended to get anywhere, because it’s a distractionary red herring, that also allows the person to strawman someone on secondary issues (secondary is a forgiving term in this case).

One side says “abortion is wrong and here’s why.” The other side instead doesn’t respond with, no it’s ok, here’s why, they respond with “you don’t care about life, because you don’t care about XYZ.” Now the first side has to respond to a non response on, what was it, like 6 different issues like housing and food stamps? That’s the absurdity of what we’re dealing with here, and that’s it’s important to stay on topic.

I think both 'sides' often do that sort of thing, actually, but you're right, plenty of people go into the "Well why don't you care about them after they are born?" kind of argument.

I've said before that one of the big reasons I think abortion arguments are so often pointless is that the people arguing can be unwilling or unable to acknowledge the perspective of the other side. I don't mean anyone needs to accept the validity of another's opinion, but the arguments too often are framed in ways that almost cannot be responded to; if a person believes abortion is murder, how can someone else argue "if you don't like it, don't do it"? If a person believes a newly fertilized egg is not yet a person, what response will they have if someone else says they believe in killing babies?

Most arguments could do with more groundwork, more clarity in the sides agreeing just what is in contention. I think that is magnified with abortion because of the nature of the contention.

So when I was rounding up the herd of cats calling me pro-death for not agreeing with Bernie talking points that would cost triple the entire amount of money that is circulating on earth (from their own estimations), how was that me ignoring the other side of the debate? I even answered all their ridiculous statements in full. I’m up for debating any aspect on this topic, including the personhood talking point, which I have already addressed. I’m not ignoring shit.

 

[sakinago]

Yes I know that. The point of disagreement is you seem to imply that because opposing sides can make moral arguments neither is false or correct. It’s a post-modernist stance you seem to be taking. Post-modernism is fine up until it gets to the point that because there are different interpretations, none is better than the other, it’s all just a power game being played.

Well, I think I'd put it more that none of the moral arguments are objectively correct, but I'm not trying to argue that, either.

I started this trying to argue that the way the arguments are put is important. Saying that the only question to answer is whether a fetus is alive or not basically dismisses any opinion that accepts a fetus as alive yet still favors any legal abortion. It's not discussing, or even arguing, it's making a declaration which doesn't allow for any other viewpoint. If the point is to discuss or argue, it is likely to make any such discussion or argument much harder to come by IMO.

I personally am planning to dismiss any argument that says, "Yes, that is a living infant, and I still think we should kill him if he's inconvenient." I do not wish to talk to anyone who does not dismiss that as evil and unacceptable. I wish to run far, far away from such people, because they are dangerous.

I imagine the argument that infants should be killed is even less common than the argument that a sperm is a separate living organism, but I completely understand not wanting to talk to anyone pushing it.

Of course it is, because it's abhorrent and marks you as the sort of evil that causes invocations of Godwin's Law. However, making that argument is the only intellectually honest, in-line-with-embryonic-science way that you can advocate for abortion.

Which is why pro-life people are forced to spend a lot of time nailing Jell-O to the wall in the form of getting pro-aborts to quit dodging the topic of whether or not a fetus is a living human organism.

Why is the argument that killing infants is acceptable the only intellectually honest way someone can advocate for abortion? That seems to be assuming there is only one kind of reasoning possible for an acceptance of abortion: that a fetus is not a separate human life.

We’ve asked for your reasoning on the contrary, many times. All ears. You want to keep cracking that door open, but leave the chain on and deflect.

 

[deanrd]

The abortion debate isn’t a question of morality. It’s a question of privacy and my right to control my life and the size of my family.

You keep trying to make this discussion about something else - your version of morality, or what you think your God would want.

I chose to have my baby. There was a cost. I never got my MBA. And I’ve never regretted my decision. But it was my decision to make.

Another friend found out she was pregnant after she had separated from her husband. She chose to end the pregnancy and wait until she was in a better situation. She had just moved to a new city to start a new life and hadn’t even found a job at that point. She also wanted to sever all ties with her husband going forward. A child is an unbreakable tie.

I am a religious woman. I believe that God have us the ability to choose. Not all embryos are viable. Just as all conditions are not ideal. God gave us choice because in times of war, famine, or other catastrophes, it’s not always possible or reasonable for women to have babies. Sometimes, the risk to both mother and child is too great.

Whatever your beliefs, allowing women to make their own choices based on their own beliefs and their own situations is the best route to go.

Pro-choice is the only unreasonable solution.

No, this is the central question to the abortion debate. Is a fetus life, and does it have a right to life. That question was not addressed by Row V wade, doesn’t even apply to the 4th amendment since it rights do not extend to the infringing on other rights, if that’s still in question, and also doesn’t apply since it doesn’t have anything to do with privacy since it’s an incredibly unprivate act that both the medical community and the government both keep extensive records on. Unless of course you believe government has no right to get involved in anything pertaining to medicine, which I’m taking an educated guess you don’t. RVW, is also a violation of both the 9th and 10th amendments. Which I’m taking an educated guess you were all for the 10th when the SCOTUS stuck down DOMA and said it was a states right issue since the fed did not have those powers granted in the enumerated rights. And then 2 years later cited the 9th saying stated have no say in the matter. You could argue the 9th, but then again the government was given the responsibility to protect life. So that’s out of the question for RVW.

Stop avoiding the actual question behind abortion. You should’nt have to avoid it like you are if you have all the answers. Is a fetus life, and does fall under the protection of life.

The question is not when does life begin. Life begins at birth. That is the legal definition of life since the dawn of time.

You wish to ascribe some other definition to the beginning of life in order that you can enforce your definition of morality on pregnant women.

Your sole purpose in this is to strip a woman of her privacy rights and her right to security of person. There is no way that you can frame an abortion law that doesn’t say that women aren’t allowed to make their own decisions in these matters, in which case, the Handmaids Tale is becoming reality.

Abortion laws don’t affect the rich. They will either find a doctor who will accommodate their wishes, or go to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal. It is the poor who suffer under these laws.

Society suffers too because unwanted children are lower in IQ, higher in delinquency levels, and generally don’t become as productive.

Well shit, didn’t know that IQ levels relied on whether or not the child was wanted, that’s some pretty interesting science. Almost said something way too mean, I’ll abstain. Is that some new epigenetics stuff coming fresh out of the world of science that you so clearly inhabit?

And no that is not even close to the definition of the beginning of life, not by law, not even by science.

And handmaidens tale, wow...Amazon comes out with one show and all of a sudden, people like me who believe in the importance of using birth control so they don’t pregnant, is the exact same as justifying raping women because that’s all their good for. Forgive me if I think birth control is vastly more important and vastly less morally wrong (birth control isn’t morally wrong) than killing you’re own offspring.

So if life begins at birth, why is it we have time limits on abortion? That doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. Why is it it’s a double homicide when a pregnant women is murdered, even if she’s on her way to get an abortion? That’s also weird. Why is it a fetus meets all the requirements of life as defined by science? I’m not understanding any of this, please explain. How is it life all of a sudden just happens once a fully formed friggen baby passes through the birth canal, in the words of Ron Burgendy makes me think “boy that escalated quickly.”

Why is a double homicide when a pg woman is killed, because she apparently has not had an abortion and maybe didn't want one, that is why. Its a well know fact you GOP are pro birth , not pro life.

It's still a somewhat hypocritical stance, legally speaking. If the fetus is not a person and can be aborted at any time without repercussion, how can it be murdered? If it is a person; or if any human being, whether a person or not, has a legal right to life; how can abortion on demand be legal? Or how can abortion be about simply a woman's control over her own body, if legally she is making the decision to kill another protected human life?

Are there any other situations in which a person might be killed on demand, yet killing that person is still murder? The closest examples that come to mind would be someone on life support or on death row, and neither of those examples quite fits. Someone who is being kept alive through mechanical ventilation, who is in a vegetative state, still would not be killed. Instead, such a person might be removed from life support; a fine distinction, perhaps, but an important one. The death row inmate will be killed, true, but as a punishment by the state.

The idea that it's just a woman's body, that the fetus is merely 'a clump of cells', does not make a lot of sense alongside the idea that killing a pregnant woman's fetus (before a viable stage) constitutes murder.

If there were a genetic test for gayness, Republicans would approve of abortion.

Republicans hate gays that much.

 

[sakinago]

I personally am planning to dismiss any argument that says, "Yes, that is a living infant, and I still think we should kill him if he's inconvenient." I do not wish to talk to anyone who does not dismiss that as evil and unacceptable. I wish to run far, far away from such people, because they are dangerous.

I imagine the argument that infants should be killed is even less common than the argument that a sperm is a separate living organism, but I completely understand not wanting to talk to anyone pushing it.

Of course it is, because it's abhorrent and marks you as the sort of evil that causes invocations of Godwin's Law. However, making that argument is the only intellectually honest, in-line-with-embryonic-science way that you can advocate for abortion.

Which is why pro-life people are forced to spend a lot of time nailing Jell-O to the wall in the form of getting pro-aborts to quit dodging the topic of whether or not a fetus is a living human organism.

Why is the argument that killing infants is acceptable the only intellectually honest way someone can advocate for abortion? That seems to be assuming there is only one kind of reasoning possible for an acceptance of abortion: that a fetus is not a separate human life.

Because when you're advocating for abortion, you're advocating killing babies. Intellectual honesty would require you to admit that, which means if you're STILL going to advocate for abortion, you are essentially saying, "Killing babies is okay." Again, this is why people advocating for abortion start side-stepping like the cast of "Riverdance" when it comes to the question of life.

If you see another option that is intellectually honest - ie. recognizes and acknowledges the facts of medical science - then by all means, point it out.

Baby seems to be more of a colloquial term than a medical one. If the intellectual dishonesty you see is based on medical science, would it not be more accurate to say that abortion is killing an embryo or a fetus? Even outside of medical terminology, baby is often defined as a newborn/infant after birth. To give a couple of examples, here's the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary definition of baby: Definition of BABY
Here's the Cambridge Dictionary definition of baby: baby Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Some online medical dictionaries only seem to have the word baby as part of a phrase, such as baby teeth or baby blues. So if you are going to argue about medical science, I don't know that abortion equaling killing babies is accurate.

This is a good example of my point. You are saying that it is intellectually dishonest to advocate abortion without admitting to killing babies, which denies the possibility that someone can honestly consider a fetus or embryo something other than a baby. As usual, I'm not trying to argue against your view on abortion, I'm just pointing out that someone can have a different view without having to ignore any science or lie to themselves.

Whose gonna know that they’re pregnant with embryo soon enough to abort? Using terms like fetus and embyro do the same thing as you claim, using verbiage to change perception. The question is, is it human life, not what correct terminology to use medically. This is just another red herring.