Texas bans abortion.

[RecoveringYuppy]

but not same as when sperm combines with egg.

Are you finally going to tell us how this chemical reaction is different from all the others ones (a lot of which are also different from a lot of other ones). And will your answer actually be a true fact this time?

I think the thing I said was important about the embryo is that it is alive and developing into a human being. A sperm alone is not doing that, neither is an egg.

And this is simply you telling lies at this point. You know god dam well an embryo can't do it alone.

You go to your own mother and tell her you were totally alone for the 9 months she was pregnant and you could've gotten to where you are now without any help from her. Yeah, just go on telling us the embryo is alone while it's in the woman, we'll totally forget that when you tell us you're concerned about women.

pretty sure embryos do develop into a human being, if connected to the uterus(which is true of any embryo that is up for consideration of being aborted)

Yeah, and sperm and eggs develop in to human being when connected to each other. Every step of the human life cycle is a step of the human life cycle.

 

[psionl0]

Oh I see, I get it. Now you're going to try and make us have this conversation in some magical alternative universe where pro-life is the more common position?

"Because they are more of us" is a bad argument. It's downright insane when there aren't actually more of you.

Since you have absolutely no idea what I was responding to let me put it this way:

If society were to say (for example) that a foetus has NO RIGHTS then would you argue that they are marching out of step with you (for using the word "rights" incorrectly)?​

 

[psionl0]

Oooo…you can’t go too far with the 9th Amendment, though.

I mean, “the right to have sex with a child,” could be construed as one of those non-enumerated rights.

Let’s be less controversial: I have an unenumerated right to snort cocaine, don’t I?

No, no, no. That ain’t how it works and it never was.

Rights are often conflicting and some adjudication may be required. I'm pretty sure that the unenumerated right to refuse to have sex with somebody trumps the right to have sex.

The other example is OT but I would say that it is definitely an unenumerated right. Of course, you will never get the "drugs are bad m'kay?" lot in the SC to agree.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, I know. While I do not believe everything happened exactly as described in Genesis, I do believe the God created the universe.

I believe God (Sarumon)
or Satan (Lord Voldemort) could take the form of a snake or donkey and talk.

I can believe God (Sarumon) can be the source of a man's strength.

I believe God (Sarumon) could knock down the stone walls of Jericho.

That's a whole lot of crap to believe based only on literary characters in an old book.

true. but there is strength in numbers.

Not when it comes to facts. That is the point of the ad populum fallacy. Facts are not affected by the number of people or even the thousands of years of belief.

pretty sure if something has not been dispoven, we can't say it is not possible.

True but you cannot say it is possible. There's a difference. Think about it.

If we are talking about a logical or scientific conclusion, you are correct..

I know of no other methods to reliably use. Do you?

Yes. I can't prove it logically or scientifically, but I do believe it. (Although I am uncertain if the dead walking around after Jesus died was meant literally or figuratively)

Why do you believe this other than it was told to you by people who have no more reason or evidence to actually know it than you do? Or that you read it in an old book?

They're not? pretty sure they're not written in first or second person.

My mistake, I meant first person and had a mind fart.

They could have told the stories to people that understood both Aramaic and Ancient Greek and could write.

When? Thirty? Forty, Seventy years later? I have a fantastic memory and I know that it is incredibly faulty. Imagine accurately remembering all of that a a month later and then tell me you could do it a half century later. There is a reason that eyewitness testimony is now considered to be the least reliable evidence in criminal trials.

You are correct, other than tradition.

Seems like a crap reason.

Do we know how old John was when Jesus's crucifixion occurred? Maybe he was in his late teens to early twenties when Jesus died. That would make him 80 to 90 around the time John is said to have been written.

Yeah, thats reliable. And since John couldn't read what his scribe wrote there is no way for him to proof the accuracy either.

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post No, it's about believing without assessment.I suppose you can view it that way.

You're basically owning up to the fact you toss critical thinking in the dumpster when your religion is involved. I respect that you're owning up to it. But I can't stand that you or anyone resorts to this kind of special pleading.

So, you did make a choice. You may not have chosen your beliefs, but you did choose the path the led you to those beliefs.

Yes, it is called critical thinking. Your religion...hell every religion I have learned about is a morass of circular reasoning and special pleading.

I will agree it is the most reliable method for logically and rationally determining the truth.

Good, that's a start.

It is not surprising that scientists choose to believe in only what can be scientifically determine. But that remaining 10 percent, hmm . . .

So you can't prove logical/rationally/scientifically that the fetus/zygote/embryo that is developing into a human being, has or should have no right to live.

I repeat, rights are decided by society. That is what we are debating. I provided what I consider why we shouldn't. You OTOH, seem to be standing on an arbitrary line without any rationale for that line.

I never they were sentient, only that they are on the way to developing sentience.

So is a sperm. So is an egg.
What difference does it make when the process is halted?
What is the difference if it is done:
During sex with a condom?
After conception, but before it attaches to the uterine walls like an IUD?
Seven weeks later with a pill?
Twenty weeks late by D&C?

Please, please please tell me what separates these lines for you if these cells are not sentient.

I see how/why it is irrelevant or intellectually dishonest. When we are talking about X developing into Y, why should Y be totally ignored?

YES! YES! YES! I see absolutely no reason to care about what it might be. Only what it is. An unwanted embryo/zygote/fetus.
I want children to be welcome additions to a family ready to welcome them as opposed to be problems, often life long problems.

If you were considering how much you'd be willing to pay for a certain investment, wouldn't you consider the future worth of that investment?

Well by that reasoning abort the fetus. Children are not wise investments.

Thank you for taking me at word(isn't that sorta taking it on faith? ) All I can say is that I don't and won't quote scripture as part of any pro-life argument. I will agree it is possible that unknowingly, my stances on abortion could have been subconsciously influenced by my religious beliefs, I apologize in advance if that turns out to be the case.

No, it's not. It is a provisional and conditional acceptance of you at your word. If you start quoting scripture tomorrow why abortion is a sin, I will know that I was in error.

 

[Paul2]

um no, that is not what I think.

What part of this that you wrote,

Faith isn't about adding together all the facts and evidence and science and believing the most probable. It means sometimes believing despite it not being probably.

doesn’t mean what Twain wrote? Not believing the most probable means not believing what is probably true, which means believing what is probably “ain’t true.”

Why would anyone ever do that? It’s nonsensical. It’s taking the second best option when the best option - the more probable - is there for the taking.

 

[catsmate]

belief due to faith can be a much deeper belief, than belief due to preponderance of evidence. The latter changes as the evidence changes, the former stays despite the changes in evidence

Oh good grief............

 

[catsmate]

They sperm and egg don't develop into a human being by themselves, that doesn't happen until they combine and an embryo is created.

Zygotes develop no further without an external host. You know, the human being you want to strip of rights.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There is not some pre-ordained number of humans who are just destined to exist by the whims of fate. "Potential Human" is the biggest red herring since Jabba's OOFLAM.

That's why I stand by my argument that all of this is a soul argument. The idea that "a person" is some finite, measurable thing that exists independent of... well its existence is needed for the concept of a "potential human" to make any sense, and that idea is just wrong.

 

[psionl0]

Zygotes develop no further without an external host.

Neither does a new born baby. This sperm = zygote argument is ridiculous!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Neither does a new born baby. This sperm = zygote argument is ridiculous!

And the zygote = baby argument is ridiculous. That's the point.

Our argument is SUPPOSED to be ridiculous and we're waiting on you to finally get that because IT'S THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT YOU ARE MAKING.

Please get there faster.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And again, to be ignored, none of this matters.

psion10 and I are both undeniably, unequivocally, outside of any gray area human.

If one of us needs the other one's kidney we aren't morally and legally obligated to give it to them.

Even if you are human/a person/(insert all the other hairsplits here) you are not entitled to another person's bodily support.

And yes pregnancy is the same.

 

[TragicMonkey]

There is not some pre-ordained number of humans who are just destined to exist by the whims of fate. "Potential Human" is the biggest red herring since Jabba's OOFLAM.

That's why I stand by my argument that all of this is a soul argument. The idea that "a person" is some finite, measurable thing that exists independent of... well its existence is needed for the concept of a "potential human" to make any sense, and that idea is just wrong.

The weird thing to me is that belief in the existence of eternal souls and loving gods etc would logically suggest abortion is not a big deal, because the precious eternal baby soul would upon being aborted either spend eternity in splendour in Heaven, or else be sent back into another fetus for another try at human life. Death itself would only be a concern for humans who had the potential to have committed sins and therefore jeopardize their place in eternal bliss. Killing the completely innocent before they could sin would in fact be an enormous favor to them, given the stakes!

But I suppose logic has little place in religion.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

And again, to be ignored, none of this matters.

psion10 and I are both undeniably, unequivocally, outside of any gray area human.

If one of us needs the other one's kidney we aren't morally and legally obligated to give it to them.

Even if you are human/a person/(insert all the other hairsplits here) you are entitled to another person's bodily support.

And yes pregnancy is the same.

There's a closer analogy in the separation of conjoined twins. If you have a situation where one child formed normally but the other's heart and executive brain functions never functionally developed, is it ethical to separate them knowing they will die? The ethical discussions I've read on the subject tend to say "well golly, it sure is a pickle, but the parents want to go through with it and it's really their call, so what ya gonna do?"

 

[abaddon]

They sperm and egg don't develop into a human being by themselves, that doesn't happen until they combine and an embryo is created.


Find me a human that was developed from a sperm alone, or one that developed from an egg alone.

I'm not sure how you don't see a different between egg lone or sperm along, and an embryo.

It is entirely possible, technically. It isn't done for ethical reasons with humans.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I mentioned a few posts back that I would try to take up the mantle and make a case for the possibility of a non-religious, non-misogynistic individual still arriving at the conclusion that he or she is opposed to abortion. I’ll give it my best shot, but it’s going to take several posts.

It’s said “Where you stand depends on where you sit”. With that in mind, I’m going to try to establish my atheist bona fides, recount a personal abortion experience in my past, elucidate a particular personal psychological trait - all of which might help explain my stance on the matter. I’ll then try to wrap it all up with how that led to me opposing abortion.

The horns of my dilemma is that on the one hand I feel that every abortion represents a loss, but on the other hand I respect a woman’t right to choose the right course of action for her own particular situation. With the possible exception of the admittedly rare late term abortions.

But let me be clear: I think the Texas law is abhorrent, both in the very short time frame it allows for abortion and how it endorses vigilante justice outside of our normal legal system.

Anyway, I’ll do my best to explain my reasoning and thought processes. If history is a guide, I expect to be ridiculed, misunderstood and possibly even be called a liar. But I’m a big boy and I can take it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think sitting down and working backwards to make up a non-religious argument for abortion is massively missing the point.

ETA: So I don't come across as dickish I'm not saying the idea isn't interesting or useful in this discussion, just that it doesn't really counter the point I was originally making, that there are no actual street level, organic non-religious arguments against abortion in the debate.

 

[cosmicaug]

belief due to faith can be a much deeper belief, than belief due to preponderance of evidence. The latter changes as the evidence changes, the former stays despite the changes in evidence

That's a faith bug, not a faith feature.

 

[psionl0]

And the zygote = baby argument is ridiculous. That's the point.

No it isn't. These pathetic attempts to dismiss conception as a non-event are a desperate attempt to justify a position that doesn't need justifying.

 

[cosmicaug]

Find me a human that was developed from a sperm alone, or one that developed from an egg alone.

Find me a human that has developed from an embryo alone.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No it isn't. These pathetic attempts to dismiss conception as a non-event are a desperate attempt to justify a position that doesn't need justifying.

Why? Because we don't agree that's when the baby jeebus puts the soul in you?