Texas bans abortion.

[Aridas]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_64262614a9aeaa6123.png[/qimg]

No adequate response to this noted, as of yet.

There's one needed with something that inane?

 

[psionl0]

BECAUSE IT ISN'T "A" HUMAN!

Don't get so emotional about it. It's just a simple categorization question. To me, a "human being in an early stage of development" seems the most apt categorization of a zygote/embryo/foetus.

That doesn't necessarily give it the same rights as other humans and if "legally human" means otherwise then argue that it is not legally human. But don't act as if you need to strenuously deny the H-word or it will suddenly get a soul or something.

 

[psionl0]

There is a difference between an embryo and a fetus, too. There is a difference between any developmental stage and another one. That's why they're different stages. The question is: which differences if any should we consider relevant, and why?

So you think "fertilization" is irrelevant? By that logic any matter at all could be considered human (since one could be constructed from it) or no person is human because nobody has reached the perfect stage of development.

It's hard to argue that something is black or white when it is actually a shade of grey but that's what you are doing.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Assuming intelligence being atleast somewhat hereditary, Warp has a pretty strong claim on being correct here. Not a big risk of spawning a Mensa member, protected sex or not.

To prevent a.human from being born, you have to interrupt the life cycle some point. And both spermatocyte and embryo are such stages.
Both an embryo and a sperm can only form a viable baby with the right conditions in a womb and luck.

So now, the line that Warp is drawing the sand is arbitrary and just convenient for his argument.

 

[smartcooky]

Don't get so emotional about it. It's just a simple categorization question. To me, a "human being in an early stage of development" seems the most apt categorization of a zygote/embryo/foetus.

No, just No!

That is just you playing dishonest shenanigans with words in an attempt to shoehorn your personal viewpoint into a definition that you want everyone else to use.

These things already have their own scientific definitions, we do not need yours.

Zygote: A fertilized egg cell that results from the union of a female gamete (egg, or ovum) with a male gamete (sperm)

Embryo: A fertilized egg that has begun cell division, A term describing the early stages of fetal growth

Foetus: The unborn offspring of an animal or human that develops from an embryo.

Human Being: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

This may be way too complicated for you to understand, but in science and medicine, we use the scientific and medical definitions, not your completely "made up to fit your personal agenda" BS. This is not your god we are discussing now!
.
.
.

 

[Stacyhs]

Don't get so emotional about it. It's just a simple categorization question. To me, a "human being in an early stage of development" seems the most apt categorization of a zygote/embryo/foetus.

That doesn't necessarily give it the same rights as other humans and if "legally human" means otherwise then argue that it is not legally human. But don't act as if you need to strenuously deny the H-word or it will suddenly get a soul or something.

It gets irritating when a person keeps asking the same damn question page after page and keeps getting the same answers page after page but just continues on asking it again. It gets irritating when someone keeps making the same damn argument page after page as if he's never made it and seemingly expects others to suddenly come to the realization that hey, he's right after all!

 

[smartcooky]

It gets irritating when a person keeps asking the same damn question page after page and keeps getting the same answers page after page but just continues on asking it again. It gets irritating when someone keeps making the same damn argument page after page as if he's never made it and seemingly expects others to suddenly come to the realization that hey, he's right after all!

Surely you have realised by now that this not a bug, its a feature!

 

[Stacyhs]

Surely you have realised by now that this not a bug, its a feature!

True. Some internet posters' main objective is just to

 

[psionl0]

No, just No!

Yes, just yes. Your dictionary (which you did not link to) did not specifically say that just because there are names given to humans at various stages of developments, that these names excluded them from being a subset of humans. You made that leap all by yourself.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, just yes. Your dictionary (which you did not link to) did not specifically say that just because there are names given to humans at various stages of developments, that these names excluded them from being a subset of humans. You made that leap all by yourself.

More inane word games. I'm not buying your BS, and I doubt anyone else is either.

 

[psionl0]

More inane word games. I'm not buying your BS, and I doubt anyone else is either.

In all this thread, I have not seen a single official source that declares that zygotes/embryos/foetuses are not human/"A human"/human beings etc.

This is a made up stance by people who feel they have to justify their position on abortion.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

In all this thread, I have not seen a single official source that declares that zygotes/embryos/foetuses are not human/"A human"/human beings etc.

This is a made up stance by people who feel they have to justify their position on abortion.

the more appropriate stance would be:
"I have not not seen a single official source that declares that zygotes/embryos/foetuses are human/"A human"/human beings etc.
This is a made up stance by people who feel they have to justify their position on abortion

bear in mind that the idea that a foetus is a full human being was never considered until it became possible to extract one viably instead of waiting for childbirth.

 

[smartcooky]

In all this thread, I have not seen a single official source that declares that zygotes/embryos/foetuses are not human/"A human"/human beings etc.

This is a made up stance by people who feel they have to justify their position on abortion.

Nope, that is not how anything works. You are, as usual, trying to reverse the burden of proof.

You are the one with the affirmative claim...

"To me, a "human being in an early stage of development" seems the most apt categorization of a zygote/embryo/foetus"."

The burden of proof is on you to support this claim with evidence. That is how skepticism works!

 

[psionl0]

the more appropriate stance would be:
"I have not not seen a single official source that declares that zygotes/embryos/foetuses are human/"A human"/human beings etc.
This is a made up stance by people who feel they have to justify their position on abortion

That just means that you don't have any authoritative basis for declaring my understanding false. All the people who are screaming that the zygote/embryo/foetus isn't human (etc) are just giving their own personal POV.

bear in mind that the idea that a foetus is a full human being was never considered until it became possible to extract one viably instead of waiting for childbirth.

Source?

 

[smartcooky]

That just means that you don't have any authoritative basis for declaring my understanding false. All the people who are screaming that the zygote/embryo/foetus isn't human (etc) are just giving their own personal POV.Source?

Another attempted burden of proof reversal.

Your claim is unproven by default unless you can prove it, and the burden of proof is on you, not on others to disprove it.

ETA: For example, I don't get to say "the moon is a big ball of Swiss Cheese. Prove me wrong". Things over here in the real world do not work like that!

 

[ZiprHead]

In all this thread, I have not seen a single official source that declares that zygotes/embryos/foetuses are not human/"A human"/human beings etc.

This is a made up stance by people who feel they have to justify their position on abortion.

Yes, they are all human tissue. So is cancer.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

You're the one assuming that parasite is some kind pejorative.

Asked of a person in the street*:

“There are some who speak of a developing fetus as a non-human parasite. Similar in many respects to cancer. Thoughts?”

What percentage would agree? It’s de facto pejorative, regardless of dictionary definitions.


*Or a woman who just suffered a miscarriage.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

As a bit of a respite from this back-and-forth…

Graham Parker is one of my favorite artists. His songs often have a skeptical bent - think “Syphilis and Religion” - but he also can deliver poignant and emotional fare.

I suspect some here will scoff at the below sample as maudlin tripe, but I find it a powerful and touching take on a very difficult topic - the one being discussed in this thread.

“You Can’t Be Too Strong” from the album “Squeezing Out Sparks”.

https://youtu.be/3fsFy3M5jg0

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Source?

The At Birth requirement is universal.
Even the Bible has the Soul entering the body at with the first breath.

But no jurisdiction awards child credits or alimony before birth. No social security, no insurance - there is no legal person prior to a Birth Certificate.
So legally, your position is clearly the weaker one.

 

[psionl0]

For example, I don't get to say "the moon is a big ball of Swiss Cheese. Prove me wrong". Things over here in the real world do not work like that!

That's EXACTLY what you do. You claim that the foetus isn't human without any proof whatsoever then demand that I prove you wrong.