Debate Now Prove your case! Abortion: Right to Choose or Right to Live?

[Boss]

The Science Dictionary says:

ZYGOTE :

A zygote is a fertilized egg containing two sets of chromosomes, one from the egg (oocyte) and one from the sperm. The zygote is a single cell and the result of a fusion between two gametes, an egg (female) and one sperm cell (male).

Go argue with them. Tell them they've made a mistake.

I understand what the science dictionary says but it is designed for intelligent people who understand communicative context. You'll notice there is no period at the end of what you bolded. If the dictionary said "zygote is a fertilized egg." then you'e be correct, but it doesn't have a period there because the sentence continues. The diploid cell produced by the fusing of egg cell and sperm cell is no longer an egg cell. This is why we use a different word (zygote) to describe it.

You are trying to pretend the zygote is still just an egg cell which is now "fertilized" but fertilization can only be confirmed if it successfully results in reproduction. If reproduction happens there is a living organism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Science Dictionary says:

ZYGOTE :

A zygote is a fertilized egg containing two sets of chromosomes, one from the egg (oocyte) and one from the sperm. The zygote is a single cell and the result of a fusion between two gametes, an egg (female) and one sperm cell (male).

Go argue with them. Tell them they've made a mistake.

I understand what the science dictionary says but it is designed for intelligent people who understand communicative context. You'll notice there is no period at the end of what you bolded. If the dictionary said "zygote is a fertilized egg." then you'e be correct, but it doesn't have a period there because the sentence continues. The diploid cell produced by the fusing of egg cell and sperm cell is no longer an egg cell. This is why we use a different word (zygote) to describe it.

You are trying to pretend the zygote is still just an egg cell which is now "fertilized" but fertilization can only be confirmed if it successfully results in reproduction. If reproduction happens there is a living organism.

I have no idea what you're attempting to say but if the zygote, embryo, or fetus are equal to a 3 year old child or you, or me,

then the only rational conclusion is that women who have abortions should be punished in the same way as women who murder 3 year olds, or you, or me.

Is that your position?

 

[Boss]

I have no idea what you're attempting to say but if the zygote, embryo, or fetus are equal to a 3 year old child or you, or me,

then the only rational conclusion is that women who have abortions should be punished in the same way as women who murder 3 year olds, or you, or me.

Is that your position?

Well nothing is "equal" to anything, especially when it comes to unique living organisms, they are all slightly different. In the context that we are terminating human life, it's no different for a woman to abort a fetus as to murder her 3 year old, we've simply codified abortion into law and made it acceptable.

My position was stated previously. I believe abortions should be extremely rare and restricted. Precisely because we are talking about human life and not some inanimate clump of cells. Ideally, I would prefer there be NO abortions ever, under any circumstance. However, I accept that the society I live in doesn't share my view and I am willing to compromise in order to maintain civil society.

 

[Boss]

I have no idea what you're attempting to say...

It's really not that difficult. Biology is clear on when a living organism exists. Once cells begin the reproduction of other cells, the criteria for a living organism is met. You want to use the term "fertilized egg" as if the egg is singular and it's not. Once the sperm penetrates the egg, it is no longer just an egg. 1+1=2. The diploid cell shares the same membrane temporarily, but it is already no longer a haploid egg cell, it never will be that again. Once it reproduces a single cell, it has met the criteria for a living organism, not a fertilized egg cell.

 

[mamooth]

That's a subjective and arbitrary classification on your part. Biology makes no such distinction. You made the distinction. It may use objective criteria, but since those objective criteria were subjectively chosen, the entire classification is still subjective.

All choices on this matter are subjective, so claims to know TheOneTruth aren't taken seriously. I could make a similar subjective choice to define unfertilized eggs as people. After all, I was once an unfertilized egg, therefore unfertilized eggs absolutely have the potential to grow into people. That's not any better or worse than your subjective choice, it's just different.

Humanity, however, has been using one subjective choice over all of its history. Personhood is assigned at birth. That's the standard, for reasons that are mainly practical. If someone wishes to create a new standard, something more than a feeling will be required. What practical advantage does your system bring?

 

[Boss]

That's a subjective and arbitrary classification on your part. Biology makes no such distinction. You made the distinction. It may use objective criteria, but since those objective criteria were subjectively chosen, the entire classification is still subjective.

All choices on this matter are subjective, so claims to know TheOneTruth aren't taken seriously. I could make a similar subjective choice to define unfertilized eggs as people. After all, I was once an unfertilized egg, therefore unfertilized eggs absolutely have the potential to grow into people. That's not any better or worse than your subjective choice, it's just different.

Humanity, however, has been using one subjective choice over all of its history. Personhood is assigned at birth. That's the standard, for reasons that are mainly practical. If someone wishes to create a new standard, something more than a feeling will be required. What practical advantage does your system bring?

Biology does make a distinction. A diploid cell is not a haploid cell, that's a distinction. There is nothing subjective about the biological requirements for a living organism. You can make up all the new words you like to disguise what you're doing, a human life begins at point of conception. Once reproduction happens, a new living organism exists.

Unfertilized eggs have no potential to ever grow into anything on their own. And no sir, you did not used to be an unfertilized egg, only half of you was. A sperm cell fertilized the egg cell, giving you the other half of your chromosomes, and when your diploid cell (zygote) produced another cell, you became a living human organism in state of being.

I am not arguing practicality or subjective standards based on practical advantage, I am arguing pure biological fact which is not subjective and doesn't give a damn if it's a practical inconvenience.

 

[Derideo_Te]

.

I have it on credible and objective sources that the fetus has the DNA of both the father and the mother and, as such, the father has as much choice as the mother in whether or not there should be an abortion.



.

As the old saying goes possession is 9/10ths of the law. He gave her his sperm to do with as she chooses. Up to the woman to make the decision that is in her own best interests.

I respectfully disagree. There is an implied, and in most cases explicit, consent of a shared interest. It takes two to tango, as they say.

.

Only the woman can have bear the fetus to term therefore it is her decision alone. If the man was capable of bearing the pregnancy then you might have a point. Until that is possible the decision rests entirely with the woman who has to carry the burden, quite literally.

 

[Derideo_Te]

first debate that roe v wade doesn't exist and isn't binding. it is not about what your religious views dictate. it is about what GOVERNMENT has the right to impose.

Roe v. Wade is a court ruling on individual right to privacy. The government has no rights. The government has limited powers enumerated in the Constitution and the rights belong to us, the people, who are endowed with them by our Creator.

And I hate to break this to you but our religious views influence everything pertaining to our self-governing and can't be segregated from it. Not only that, but this is Constitutionally protected under our freedom of religion.

Spoken like someone who has never actually read the RvW decision for himself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

first debate that roe v wade doesn't exist and isn't binding. it is not about what your religious views dictate. it is about what GOVERNMENT has the right to impose.

Roe v. Wade is a court ruling on individual right to privacy. The government has no rights. The government has limited powers enumerated in the Constitution and the rights belong to us, the people, who are endowed with them by our Creator.

And I hate to break this to you but our religious views influence everything pertaining to our self-governing and can't be segregated from it. Not only that, but this is Constitutionally protected under our freedom of religion.

uh... yeah re roe. and? i think we all knew what the ruling says. the right right apparently doesn't understand it since they keep trying to pass laws that violate it. if you acknowledge that it is not governments place to interfere in this, as set forth in roe, then the constant drumbeat on the subject is pointless.

no one cares if you "self-govern" based on your religious views. the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for imposition of restrictions on the rest of us.

Courts don't create our laws, the people do. The SCOTUS has been historically horrible at establishing the laws we have to live under as a society. They told us for 85 years that slaves were property, rightfully owned by their masters. It told us for years that blacks should be segregated. It has upheld misogyny and sodomy laws, violated the hell out of basic human rights for Native Americans, kept women in their place long after they got the vote.

Now... HERE is where I have a problem with you...

"...the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for..."

They have the inalienable RIGHT to use their religious views as the basis for any damn thing they please. You do not have the right to restrict their religious influence.

The People also have the right to give women the right to an abortion, which they have.

Uhm.. No, the SCOTUS did that in Roe v. Wade.

Since we have a government of the People, by the People, and for the People,

the People through their representatives give women the right to an abortion.

And furthermore, the People have had for 40+ years the opportunity to reverse Roe v Wade, and the People have chosen not to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You set the rules for the game. Live with them.

A person would have to be monumentally stupid and ignorant to think either a sperm or an egg qualified as a human being on their own.

I set no "rules for the game" predicated upon such idiocy. It was you who did so.

I didn't say that. YOU talked about stopping the 'development' of a human being. The beginning of such 'development' can be traced to the fertilization process, which begins when sperm are introduced into the female's reproductive tract.

 

[Boss]

Roe v. Wade is a court ruling on individual right to privacy. The government has no rights. The government has limited powers enumerated in the Constitution and the rights belong to us, the people, who are endowed with them by our Creator.

And I hate to break this to you but our religious views influence everything pertaining to our self-governing and can't be segregated from it. Not only that, but this is Constitutionally protected under our freedom of religion.

uh... yeah re roe. and? i think we all knew what the ruling says. the right right apparently doesn't understand it since they keep trying to pass laws that violate it. if you acknowledge that it is not governments place to interfere in this, as set forth in roe, then the constant drumbeat on the subject is pointless.

no one cares if you "self-govern" based on your religious views. the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for imposition of restrictions on the rest of us.

Courts don't create our laws, the people do. The SCOTUS has been historically horrible at establishing the laws we have to live under as a society. They told us for 85 years that slaves were property, rightfully owned by their masters. It told us for years that blacks should be segregated. It has upheld misogyny and sodomy laws, violated the hell out of basic human rights for Native Americans, kept women in their place long after they got the vote.

Now... HERE is where I have a problem with you...

"...the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for..."

They have the inalienable RIGHT to use their religious views as the basis for any damn thing they please. You do not have the right to restrict their religious influence.

The People also have the right to give women the right to an abortion, which they have.

Uhm.. No, the SCOTUS did that in Roe v. Wade.

Since we have a government of the People, by the People, and for the People,

the People through their representatives give women the right to an abortion.

And furthermore, the People have had for 40+ years the opportunity to reverse Roe v Wade, and the People have chosen not to.

The Supreme Court is not the people or their representatives, they are the judicial branch of government. Nine justices appointed for life make up the court. They ruled on Roe v. Wade and they are who have had the opportunity to revisit it. For 80+ years, this same court ruled black slaves were personal property. For another 90+ years, this same court ruled blacks were not entitled to the same education as whites. 200+ years, same court said homosexual behavior was criminal sodomy.

I am actually fine with having the issue of abortion and restrictions on it be determined at the ballot box in each state. Let the people decide!

 

[jillian]

first debate that roe v wade doesn't exist and isn't binding. it is not about what your religious views dictate. it is about what GOVERNMENT has the right to impose.

Roe v. Wade is a court ruling on individual right to privacy. The government has no rights. The government has limited powers enumerated in the Constitution and the rights belong to us, the people, who are endowed with them by our Creator.

And I hate to break this to you but our religious views influence everything pertaining to our self-governing and can't be segregated from it. Not only that, but this is Constitutionally protected under our freedom of religion.

uh... yeah re roe. and? i think we all knew what the ruling says. the right right apparently doesn't understand it since they keep trying to pass laws that violate it. if you acknowledge that it is not governments place to interfere in this, as set forth in roe, then the constant drumbeat on the subject is pointless.

no one cares if you "self-govern" based on your religious views. the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for imposition of restrictions on the rest of us.

Courts don't create our laws, the people do. The SCOTUS has been historically horrible at establishing the laws we have to live under as a society. They told us for 85 years that slaves were property, rightfully owned by their masters. It told us for years that blacks should be segregated. It has upheld misogyny and sodomy laws, violated the hell out of basic human rights for Native Americans, kept women in their place long after they got the vote.

Now... HERE is where I have a problem with you...

"...the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for..."

They have the inalienable RIGHT to use their religious views as the basis for any damn thing they please. You do not have the right to restrict their religious influence.

your opinion as to what the court's decisions have been is interesting only as an aside. reality: you have no right to impose your religious viewpoints on me.

and the Court DOES exist to clarify what government can and can't do. i particularly love when the pretend small government types cry about not being able to dictate everyone else's most personal acts.

no... no one has any right, much less "inalienable" right to impose their extreme religious views on the rest of us no matter if you type in bold, in caps, in 200 point type. if you want to live that way, go live under the caliphate and leave everyone else alone.

now leave everyone else alone.

 

[jillian]

uh... yeah re roe. and? i think we all knew what the ruling says. the right right apparently doesn't understand it since they keep trying to pass laws that violate it. if you acknowledge that it is not governments place to interfere in this, as set forth in roe, then the constant drumbeat on the subject is pointless.

no one cares if you "self-govern" based on your religious views. the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for imposition of restrictions on the rest of us.

Courts don't create our laws, the people do. The SCOTUS has been historically horrible at establishing the laws we have to live under as a society. They told us for 85 years that slaves were property, rightfully owned by their masters. It told us for years that blacks should be segregated. It has upheld misogyny and sodomy laws, violated the hell out of basic human rights for Native Americans, kept women in their place long after they got the vote.

Now... HERE is where I have a problem with you...

"...the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for..."

They have the inalienable RIGHT to use their religious views as the basis for any damn thing they please. You do not have the right to restrict their religious influence.

The People also have the right to give women the right to an abortion, which they have.

Uhm.. No, the SCOTUS did that in Roe v. Wade.

Since we have a government of the People, by the People, and for the People,

the People through their representatives give women the right to an abortion.

And furthermore, the People have had for 40+ years the opportunity to reverse Roe v Wade, and the People have chosen not to.

The Supreme Court is not the people or their representatives, they are the judicial branch of government. Nine justices appointed for life make up the court. They ruled on Roe v. Wade and they are who have had the opportunity to revisit it. For 80+ years, this same court ruled black slaves were personal property. For another 90+ years, this same court ruled blacks were not entitled to the same education as whites. 200+ years, same court said homosexual behavior was criminal sodomy.

I am actually fine with having the issue of abortion and restrictions on it be determined at the ballot box in each state. Let the people decide!

yes, because the majority always protects the rights of the minority.

listen snookums, you can't vote away a constitutionally protected right.

again... stay out of everyone else's business.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I didn't say that. YOU talked about stopping the 'development' of a human being. The beginning of such 'development' can be traced to the fertilization process, which begins when sperm are introduced into the female's reproductive tract.

If you are out to prove your ignorance of biology or inability to think logically, you are doing a bang-up job, because a human being is not the inevitable result of such action. If it was, there would be trillions of us by now.

You have one child for every time you have had sex do you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I didn't say that. YOU talked about stopping the 'development' of a human being. The beginning of such 'development' can be traced to the fertilization process, which begins when sperm are introduced into the female's reproductive tract.

If you are out to prove your ignorance of biology or inability to think logically, you are doing a bang-up job, because a human being is not the inevitable result of such action. If it was, there would be trillions of us by now.

You have one child for every time you have had sex do you?

It's your argument. Go argue with yourself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

uh... yeah re roe. and? i think we all knew what the ruling says. the right right apparently doesn't understand it since they keep trying to pass laws that violate it. if you acknowledge that it is not governments place to interfere in this, as set forth in roe, then the constant drumbeat on the subject is pointless.

no one cares if you "self-govern" based on your religious views. the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for imposition of restrictions on the rest of us.

Courts don't create our laws, the people do. The SCOTUS has been historically horrible at establishing the laws we have to live under as a society. They told us for 85 years that slaves were property, rightfully owned by their masters. It told us for years that blacks should be segregated. It has upheld misogyny and sodomy laws, violated the hell out of basic human rights for Native Americans, kept women in their place long after they got the vote.

Now... HERE is where I have a problem with you...

"...the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for..."

They have the inalienable RIGHT to use their religious views as the basis for any damn thing they please. You do not have the right to restrict their religious influence.

The People also have the right to give women the right to an abortion, which they have.

Uhm.. No, the SCOTUS did that in Roe v. Wade.

Since we have a government of the People, by the People, and for the People,

the People through their representatives give women the right to an abortion.

And furthermore, the People have had for 40+ years the opportunity to reverse Roe v Wade, and the People have chosen not to.

The Supreme Court is not the people or their representatives, they are the judicial branch of government. Nine justices appointed for life make up the court. They ruled on Roe v. Wade and they are who have had the opportunity to revisit it. For 80+ years, this same court ruled black slaves were personal property. For another 90+ years, this same court ruled blacks were not entitled to the same education as whites. 200+ years, same court said homosexual behavior was criminal sodomy.

I am actually fine with having the issue of abortion and restrictions on it be determined at the ballot box in each state. Let the people decide!

Do we have a government of the People or not?

Why would you want the states to decide abortion if you believe abortion is murder? That is condoning murder.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It's your argument. Go argue with yourself.

I have not made that argument.

You simply lack the intelligence necessary to understand anything.

 

[mamooth]

Biology does make a distinction. A diploid cell is not a haploid cell, that's a distinction. There is nothing subjective about the biological requirements for a living organism. You can make up all the new words you like to disguise what you're doing, a human life begins at point of conception. Once reproduction happens, a new living organism exists

Saying over and over that it's not subjective doesn't make your subjective choice any less subjective. To give a different example, skin color is an objective criteria. Some people once used skin color to determine humanity. That was their subjective choice to use objective criteria, making the whole thing subjective. You're also subjectively choosing which objective criteria you want to use, making your choice entirely subjective.

Unfertilized eggs have no potential to ever grow into anything on their own.

Neither does a fertilized egg. On its own, it dies. So your definition fails.

Naturally, you'll adjust your definition now. Which shows how you're starting with your conclusion and working back to a subjective definition that allows you to justify your conclusion.

And no sir, you did not used to be an unfertilized egg, only half of you was. A sperm cell fertilized the egg cell, giving you the other half of your chromosomes, and when your diploid cell (zygote) produced another cell, you became a living human organism in state of being.

You're obviously using your subjective definitions to justify the murder of helpless haploid humans. Oh, the humanity!

I am not arguing practicality or subjective standards based on practical advantage, I am arguing pure biological fact which is not subjective and doesn't give a damn if it's a practical inconvenience.

That's why your subjective choice wasn't chosen by the world, because it fails the practicality test. Specks aren't people.

 

[jillian]

Courts don't create our laws, the people do. The SCOTUS has been historically horrible at establishing the laws we have to live under as a society. They told us for 85 years that slaves were property, rightfully owned by their masters. It told us for years that blacks should be segregated. It has upheld misogyny and sodomy laws, violated the hell out of basic human rights for Native Americans, kept women in their place long after they got the vote.

Now... HERE is where I have a problem with you...

"...the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for..."

They have the inalienable RIGHT to use their religious views as the basis for any damn thing they please. You do not have the right to restrict their religious influence.

The People also have the right to give women the right to an abortion, which they have.

Uhm.. No, the SCOTUS did that in Roe v. Wade.

Since we have a government of the People, by the People, and for the People,

the People through their representatives give women the right to an abortion.

And furthermore, the People have had for 40+ years the opportunity to reverse Roe v Wade, and the People have chosen not to.

The Supreme Court is not the people or their representatives, they are the judicial branch of government. Nine justices appointed for life make up the court. They ruled on Roe v. Wade and they are who have had the opportunity to revisit it. For 80+ years, this same court ruled black slaves were personal property. For another 90+ years, this same court ruled blacks were not entitled to the same education as whites. 200+ years, same court said homosexual behavior was criminal sodomy.

I am actually fine with having the issue of abortion and restrictions on it be determined at the ballot box in each state. Let the people decide!

Do we have a government of the People or not?

Why would you want the states to decide abortion if you believe abortion is murder? That is condoning murder.

he just wants to be able to screw around with women, minorities, etc. that's usually what the so-called 'states'-righters' want.

 

[Boss]

Saying over and over that it's not subjective doesn't make your subjective choice any less subjective.

The definition of a living organism in biology is simply not subjective. If you think so, you need to go look up the word because you don't know what it means. Biological facts are not my subjective choices.

It's actually subjective to be trying to redefine a living organism based on subjective criteria like "personhood" or "viability." Those are completely subjective criteria and there is no way around that.