• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
psionl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
Plonk.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
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?”
Click to expand...

I will own up to the fact that inserting the bolded above was a poor decision on my part.

In my defense, there was so much discussion about what is a human, as opposed to what is human, that I was confused. Similarly, discussions about when human life begins seem to imply that at some point prior to that the thing under discussion was either not human or not alive or both.

But again, my bad.
 
Last edited:
cosmicaug said:
You are just trolling here but is there any reason not to classify individual ova and sperm as human beings?
Click to expand...
You know very well that it takes both joined together to start a human being.

The notion that if we regard an unborn individual as a human being then we must regard all human cells as individual human beings is ridiculous but is put so often that I suspect that the wrong person is being labelled a "troll".
 
Stacyhs said:
psionl0 said:
At best, it equivocated on the question and even then it was addressing a much narrower issue. Namely "human being for which the state has in interest in preserving" and not human beings in general. It did not answer the question on whether human life arises before birth at all.
Click to expand...
The state of freaking TEXAS in their argument before the S. Court.
Click to expand...

I repeat, guy is trolling.

In addition to constantly equivocating on the use of "human" (ie. "is human" vs. "is a human"), did you not notice how he edited his own quote of the text you linked so as to make it appear as if it supports his "reading" of the text (or that the text is, at worst, unclear in this point)?

I did not point it out (I just called him a troll without referencing this) because it just jumped out at me.

The quote "human being for which the state has in interest in preserving" was originally "the idea the fetus is a human being (for which the state has in interest in preserving)is earnestly disputed". The object here is "a human being". He is forcing a reading here in which the object becomes "a human being for which the state has in interest in preserving". Thus, as he has explained, he is making the erroneous point that the court is creating the class of human beings for which the state has an interest in preserving and the class of human beings which do not fall in that category (presumably zygotes, embryos, fetuses, sperm & ova).

He clearly knows that the object in that sentence is "a human being". He dishonestly made that edit removing the parentheses that make this unambiguously clear*.

Nothing here is in good faith. These are not innocent errors. He is just trolling here (and everywhere else in this thread).


* The parenthesis are expanding on "the idea the fetus is a human being is earnestly disputed". There is no ambiguity here. This is a statement about a dispute regarding whether a fetus is a "human being". It is not a statement regarding a dispute concerning which of two classes of human being a fetus should placed in (one deserving legal protection or one not deserving of legal protection).
 
A pet peeve of mine, perhaps stated before, is the labeling the two sides have chosen, with blatantly obvious intent.

“Pro-Life” is obviously chosen so that anyone on the other side begins with the disadvantage of being labeled “Anti-Life”, which is absurd unless qualified.

“Pro-Choice” is obviously chosen so that anyone on the other side begins with the disadvantage of being “Anti-Choice”, which is absurd unless qualified.

And both surgically excise the word “abortion” from their label, which is dishonest. There’s got to be more honest labels to be had.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
You know very well that it takes both joined together to start a human being.

The notion that if we regard an unborn individual as a human being then we must regard all human cells as individual human beings is ridiculous but is put so often that I suspect that the wrong person is being labelled a "troll".
Click to expand...

"Why won't you just agree to stop at my arbitrary point and say that I am right?"
 
JoeMorgue said:
psionl0 said:
You know very well that it takes both joined together to start a human being.

The notion that if we regard an unborn individual as a human being then we must regard all human cells as individual human beings is ridiculous but is put so often that I suspect that the wrong person is being labelled a "troll".
Click to expand...
"Why won't you just agree to stop at my arbitrary point and say that I am right?"
Click to expand...

The problem with "arguing about semantics" is that when we have person A using a given word or expression and assigning it a completely different meaning than person B, no one can make any sense of the conversation.

This is not what is happening here. It is not even a matter of disagreement (he probably disagrees with some but it is impossible to discern what positions, if any, he holds).

Our troll knows he is using certain words and expressions in non standard ways and he knows how others are using these same words and expressions; he knows when he is misinterpreting text; he knows that when he is interchanging certain words and expressions it confuses any conversations; he knows when he is using dishonest rhetorical tactics. He can actually make sense of the conversation but chooses not to. These are deliberate choices and not innocent mistakes.
 
Calling a sperm still swimming in some guy's balls and an unfertilized egg still in some woman's body a potential human, now that's obviously a silly strawman hyperbole dramatic with sprinkles.

But a clump of cells the size of a pinhead with no organs, obviously now we have to start troll-wringing (that's the same thing as handwringing but you assume I'm right because I say so) about where human, no pardon me... *clears throat* A HUMAN BEING *pause while the angelic chorus dies down* starts.
 
Last edited:
Lukraak_Sisser said:
What I find interesting is that the things that will really stop abortions, namely good sexual education and easy, free access to contraception via universal healthcare are somehow as evil as abortions to religious conservatives.
Click to expand...

I had sex education in junior high. But alas, it had to wait until well after high school before I got to enjoy a sexual education. ;)
 
JoeMorgue said:
Calling a sperm still swimming in some guy's balls and an unfertilized egg still in some woman's body a potential human, now that's obviously a silly strawman hyperbole dramatic with sprinkles.

But a clump of cells the size of a pinhead with no organs, obviously now we have to start troll-wringing (that's the same thing as handwringing but you assume I'm right because I say so) about where human, no pardon me... *clears through* A HUMAN BEING *pause while the angelic chorus dies down* starts.
Click to expand...

Does this forum have any sarcasm tags implemented?
 
cosmicaug said:
The parenthesis are expanding on "the idea the fetus is a human being is earnestly disputed". There is no ambiguity here. This is a statement about a dispute regarding whether a fetus is a "human being". It is not a statement regarding a dispute concerning which of two classes of human being a fetus should placed in (one deserving legal protection or one not deserving of legal protection).
Click to expand...
That is a ridiculous interpretation of parentheses. The phrase "for which the state has in interest in preserving" modifies the object "human being" whether it is in parentheses or not. Similarly, it invites the consideration of the possible existence of a "human being (for which the state does not have in interest in preserving)" irrespective of the use of parentheses.

It is clear who is doing the trolling here.
 
Warp12 said:
No, you have it wrong. I don't support the TX law. Believe it or not, one may not favor abortion, but understand that things happen. However, it doesn't mean that there should be no focus on personal accountability. I know numerous people who have either had abortions, or carried "accidents" to term...when they chose not to use birth control. Some of them with multiple instances of each, sometimes by different fathers.

Instead of any reasonable position, though...we have people in here calling the unborn "parasites", talking about 40-week abortions, and espousing the benefits of abortion as related to population control.

It's ludicrous.
Click to expand...

I think I missed this post.

Consider combinations of the following factors:

  • use/non-use of birth control
  • timing of the abortion (1st, 2nd, 3rd trimester)
  • serious danger to the woman's health or life
  • high probability of unsurvivable deformity of the fetus after childbirth

What does personal accountability look like to you in various of those scenarios, your choice?
 
I'm still waiting on a (non-troll) answer as to why women using abortion as birth control is any different then them using the pill or IUDs or condoms that isn't pure "But at an arbitrary point it's a baby because God put a soul in it" nonsense or pure semantics.
 
Also here's a question.

Why do they keep getting to ask the question over and over until they get the answer they want? Wasn't Roe Vs Wade supposed to be one of those, whatchmacallit, "precedent" things?

Isn't asking the Supreme Court something and getting an answer supposed to be where the question ends unless some major new facts about what is being asked come out?

What new facts about abortion are there to ask the question again?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom