Not the view you were looking for: A conservative woman's view on abortion

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I don't know why you're still trying, TemplarKormac. The science serves the agenda for these people, not the other way around. You might as well be trying to argue with the creationist who found 60,000 year old fossil and threw it out.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You're kind of mashing things together and claiming things I've neither said nor suggested.

Funny you use that reasoning to define what is or isn't a human being.

I have not defined what is or isn't a human being.

It would help us all if you would just stop with the bullshit word parsings and tell us what you actually believe. Or do you need these excuses in order to support murder of the innocent?

I won't stop with the "word parsings" until you (or rather TK) stops assuming I'm saying things I haven't said simply because I'm pro-choice and therefor must be saying it.

I believe that only the woman has the right to make decisions regarding her own body. That right is primary. Secondary comes the right of her fetus. I don't support elective abortions in the last trimester of pregnancy except under certain conditions: the mother's health or life is indangered or severe fetal deformaties. No one argues that it is not a "human being". But whether it is a person to be granted all rights is another argument entirely.

The pro life argument is that the fetus is a separate life and not part of the woman's body.

Well that's a pretty stupid argument, considering science shows otherwise.

 

[Ernie S.]

I
“Well, look abortion is obviously a very delicate subject, she replied. "I happen to believe that science is proving us right. The DNA in a zygote is the same as the DNA the day you die, we do have common ground on this issue now.”

So identical twins only count as one person?

I don't get the argument. Is Fiorina saying that a human being is nothing more than a strand of DNA?

I shouldn't expect more than a stupid response from you but shit man.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I
“Well, look abortion is obviously a very delicate subject, she replied. "I happen to believe that science is proving us right. The DNA in a zygote is the same as the DNA the day you die, we do have common ground on this issue now.”

So identical twins only count as one person?

I don't get the argument. Is Fiorina saying that a human being is nothing more than a strand of DNA?

I shouldn't expect more than a stupid response from you but shit man.

Do identical twins not have identical DNA? Were they not once part of the same fertilized embryo - and hence - by your logic - one person?


That's an interesting change in the definition of personhood. I never thought that a person could split into two different people.

 

[Coyote]

Science doesn't determine the concept of personhood.

Science determines everything in the world other than life? Are you serious?

You were talking about personhood - not life. Two completely different things.

Personhood - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.[1]

So when does one become a person in your mind?

Once a fetus is viable, but legally speaking not until it's born.

A fetus is viable the moment an egg is fertilized. It will become a human being. That's what it does. No matter how hard you try to redefine it in law.

No. It will not become a human being. It might. Maybe. Like an acorn might become an oak tree.

Viable:

1. (of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.

I have a proposition for you. Why don't you go to an abortion clinic and talk a woman out of her abortion by offering to house her blastocyst until it's viable?

I have a proposition for you. Could you perhaps avoid committing ad baculum, or reductio ad absurdum fallacies by asking "why don't you house her blastocyst?"

ad baculum? I don't think that means what you think it does.

Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for "argument to the cudgel" or "appeal to the stick"), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification. It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences. For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the "Might Makes Right" fallacy​

As for the other fallacy...it's not going to fit to well either: Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's actually possible to nurture an embryo in a male. It's risky (but then, pregnancy in a female carries it's own risks). There has been little attempt to do serious research in it. Why? Maybe because it's easier for you to force women into carrying out a pregnancy and putting all the moral and ethical crap related to it on her and her alone.

Moreover, how about you walk into the LDR room of a hospital and try to talk a mother into aborting the child. Go ahead, try it.

Why would I want to talk some INTO an abortion?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Well that's a pretty stupid argument, considering science shows otherwise.

Let's start from the beginning. How are you defining "life"? We can't really discuss the issue of whether someone is alive without knowing we're using the same criteria.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Well that's a pretty stupid argument, considering science shows otherwise.

Let's start from the beginning. How are you defining "life"? We can't really discuss the issue of whether someone is alive without knowing we're using the same criteria.

Let's go even further back. How do you define "separate"? The fetus and the mother share a fucking organ, its called the "placenta" - maybe you heard of it. That's quite a strange definition of "separate".

 

[Coyote]

You're kind of mashing things together and claiming things I've neither said nor suggested.

Funny you use that reasoning to define what is or isn't a human being.

I have not defined what is or isn't a human being.

It would help us all if you would just stop with the bullshit word parsings and tell us what you actually believe. Or do you need these excuses in order to support murder of the innocent?

I won't stop with the "word parsings" until you (or rather TK) stops assuming I'm saying things I haven't said simply because I'm pro-choice and therefor must be saying it.

I believe that only the woman has the right to make decisions regarding her own body. That right is primary. Secondary comes the right of her fetus. I don't support elective abortions in the last trimester of pregnancy except under certain conditions: the mother's health or life is indangered or severe fetal deformaties. No one argues that it is not a "human being". But whether it is a person to be granted all rights is another argument entirely.

The pro life argument is that the fetus is a separate life and not part of the woman's body.

In that case she can not be forced to house it against her will.

 

[TemplarKormac]

However, just because we all have the same DNA from conception to death is not a reason to deny a woman the right to choose what she does with her own body.

Not to get too dramatic here, but:

She chose the moment she willingly (key word there, willingly) opened her legs, she chose. She decided that she would use her body in the commission of sexual intercourse; to take the risk of becoming pregnant, either through a failure of the condom or through unprotected sex.

I really cannot equate a right to make a choice with the right to exist. The baby doesn't get to choose. Thusly I see the pro-choice stance to be quite self centered.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Well that's a pretty stupid argument, considering science shows otherwise.

Let's start from the beginning. How are you defining "life"? We can't really discuss the issue of whether someone is alive without knowing we're using the same criteria.

Let's go even further back. How do you define "separate"? The fetus and the mother share a fucking organ, its called the "placenta" - maybe you heard of it. That's quite a strange definition of "separate".

"Separate" is just a modifier of "life" in the question of whether they have a separate life. Please give me the definition you are using for "life". What defines whether something is alive or not? There is a correct answer, but I want yours.

 

[Coyote]

I won't stop with the "word parsings" until you (or rather TK) stops assuming I'm saying things I haven't said simply because I'm pro-choice and therefor must be saying it.

So, state your case plainly.

I just did.

 

[TemplarKormac]

We are aware of each others views, TK and neither of us will change our minds.

You better believe it!

 

[TemplarKormac]

I just did.

Where? When were you not uttering "blastocyst" every other word?

 

[Ernie S.]

Seeing she is the only person capable of housing it, her refusal (if, for the moment we consider it a separate life) is tantamount to murder.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Where? When were you not uttering "blastocyst" every other word?

They think that using the technical terminology shows that they're clearly so much smarter than everyone else than we should take their opinion as fact like they do. Basically it boils down to "I'm better than you because I am so neenerneenerneener."

 

[Coyote]

I just did.

Where? When were you not uttering "blastocyst" every other word?

Post #115 - the one you responded to. There was no mention of blastocyst.

 

[Coyote]

Where? When were you not uttering "blastocyst" every other word?

They think that using the technical terminology demonstrates a clear enough superiority that everyone should take their opinion as fact on faith.

You seem to have a problem with accurate terminology.

 

[Coyote]

Seeing she is the only person capable of housing it, her refusal (if, for the moment we consider it a separate life) is tantamount to murder.

No one can be forced to house another in their body against their will. To force it otherwise is tantamount to slavery. If people really cared so much - why aren't they crying for research into finding alternatives? They aren't.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

You seem to have a problem with accurate terminology.

I clarified it:

They think that using the technical terminology shows that they're clearly so much smarter than everyone else than we should take their opinion as fact like they do. Basically it boils down to "I'm better than you because I am so neenerneenerneener."

I will give you bonus points for using it correctly though. That's almost as rare in your circles as knowing that life actually does have a set biological definition.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Secondary comes the right of her fetus.

Wow. No. Stop.

The fetus HAS no rights, therefore the child is neither the primary, secondary, nor tertiary concern for the mother in your argument...