Abortion

[jj]

Yes, jj, it is possible to hold a pro-choice position while agreeing that some pro-life arguments make valid points, such as the observation that abortion is, in fact, the termination of a human life, and that a legal prohibition of abortion would not violate the Thirteenth Amendment. This is called being "reasonable."

Except that it is entirely debatable that a human life is being ended, and as such, the entire position rests on an unsupported premise.

 

[Alliebubs]

Except that it is entirely debatable that a human life is being ended, and as such, the entire position rests on an unsupported premise.

Sigh. I think the splitting of hairs occurred when arguments were being made that a fetus isn't a "person", whatever moral/philosophical connotations are made with that statement. A fetus is a human life. Its DNA is human and, thus, characterised as a part of the human species. Let's not quibble over whether a "human life is being ended", since it is. Whether a "person" is being killed is, again, another type of argument. It is not an unsupported premise, since the fundamentals of procreation are pretty absolute, in that when a spermatozoa from a human male comes together with an ovum from a human female, another human organism is created. It is separate and distinct from both the mother and the father.

If we want to have a discussion on whether a person is being murdered, then let's do so. But to nitpick at biological absolutes and call them unsupported does nothing to help reconcile our differing viewpoints.

 

[jj]

A fetus is a human life. Its DNA is human and, thus, characterised as a part of the human species. Let's not quibble over whether a "human life is being ended", since it is.

No, you don't get away with proof by assertion. Saying something emphatically does not make it so. As it happens, I do not agree with you. The potential for a human being is there, but it takes a combination of mom and the fetus to make something into a human being. Remember, we're talking 1st trimester here, not 3rd trimester. I think I've made it clear already that 3rd trimester abortions are not for elective purposes in my book.

But rhetoric like yours attempts to bully me into accepting your definition. I don't. I'm not the only one who doesn't. The question is far from simple, and it absolutely not clear that

A fetus is a human life.

Since the debate is about that, no, you don't get to take that as a presumption. sorry.

 

[JamesDillon]

No, you don't get away with proof by assertion. Saying something emphatically does not make it so. As it happens, I do not agree with you.

jj,
Since you have appear to have forgotten, let me remind you that you have conceded yourself that a fetus is a "human" in the biological sense of the word.

Hmm, well, I guess we could quibble about what "biological sense" might mean, but you're saying it's a more limited meaning than "human being" in the usual sense to which rights, etc, are accorded. I suppose I can accept this, but I do point out that this makes misinterpretation very, very easy for someone who wants to say: ABORTION KILLS HUMANS

But rhetoric like yours attempts to bully me into accepting your definition. I don't. I'm not the only one who doesn't. The question is far from simple, and it absolutely not clear that

Is there anyone with whom you disagree who doesn't employ "bullying rhetoric"? This seems to be your favorite way of avoiding the substance of a post.

Since the debate is about that, no, you don't get to take that as a presumption. sorry.

It doesn't appear to me that the post was "presuming" anything; rather, it seemed to be making an argument for a position that you yourself have already conceded.

 

[jj]

jj,
Since you have appear to have forgotten, let me remind you that you have conceded yourself that a fetus is a "human" in the biological sense of the word.

Fine, let's look at my quote again, shall we?

Hmm, well, I guess we could quibble about what "biological sense" might mean, but you're saying it's a more limited meaning than "human being" in the usual sense to which rights, etc, are accorded. I suppose I can accept this, but I do point out that this makes misinterpretation very, very easy for someone who wants to say: ABORTION KILLS HUMANS

Is there some part of "more limited meaning" that wasn't clear the first time? I think that was pretty clear.

Is there anyone with whom you disagree who doesn't employ "bullying rhetoric"? This seems to be your favorite way of avoiding the substance of a post.

Let's see, somebody says, oh, let's say, hypothetically:

Black IS white.

And then goes on to say "so let's accept that and move on, if you don't you're being unreasonable".

Yeah. Right.

Another try from you at taking statements out of context is noted.

 

[JamesDillon]

jj,

How was I taking your quote out of context? In the language I quoted, you agreed with my assertion

that a developing embryo must be "human" in the biological sense only, simply because it is an independent biological entity and the most objective manner to classify any biological entity is by reference to its genetic makeup.

Alliebubs's argument was that

A fetus is a human life. Its DNA is human and, thus, characterised as a part of the human species.

She further conceded that

Whether a "person" is being killed is, again, another type of argument.

thereby making clear that the biological status of the fetus does not determine the question of its legal or moral rights. In other words, it appears that she was reiterating the "more limited meaning" of the term that I proposed earlier, and to which you agreed.

Can you now explain how your response to Alliebubs is not inconsistent with your response to me?

 

[jj]

jj,

How was I taking your quote out of context? In the language I quoted, you agreed with my assertion

I guess you're down to repetitive evasion. What part of "more limited meaning" do you not grasp, please.

thereby making clear that the biological status of the fetus does not determine the question of its legal or moral rights.

Why does this matter? Hint: It doesn't matter. It's a straw man in this context even though it's an issue in another context in this thread. You're confuting two issues here.

In other words, it appears that she was reiterating the "more limited meaning" of the term that I proposed earlier, and to which you agreed.

Straw man, extraction from context. Is there some reason that you have such a need to presume what I mean when I say something?

Can you now explain how your response to Alliebubs is not inconsistent with your response to me?

I don't have to. The inconsistancy is your own invention.

Stop inventing problems for other people to solve.

And go burn down your own straw men the next time.

 

[JamesDillon]

I guess you're down to repetitive evasion. What part of "more limited meaning" do you not grasp, please.

As I have pointed out above, you have conceded that a fetus is a human in the "limited [biological] meaning" in which it is a member of the species homo sapiens. We have mutually agreed that this does not end the inquiry into whether a fetus can claim the legal and moral rights enjoyed by an adult human being.

Alliebubs then articulated the same argument, using "human" in the same sense of "a member of the human species" to which you had already agreed, to which you responded by accusing her of "bullying rhetoric." If Alliebubs and I are proposing to apply the same definition of "human" to a developing fetus, how is it consistent for you to accept my usage of that definition but reject hers?

Another try from you at taking statements out of context is noted.

Don't forget that I'm also "attempt[ing] the fallacy of trying to reduce an implication to an equivelence,[sic]" even after my "shift of antecedant [sic]."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1503729&postcount=268

 

[jj]

Don't forget that I'm also "attempt[ing] the fallacy of trying to reduce an implication to an equivelence," even after my "shift of antecedant [sic]."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1503729&postcount=268

Oooh, he can do a spelling flame.

Pure, smelly, troll. Go back under the bridge.

 

[JamesDillon]

Oooh, he can do a spelling flame.

Pure, smelly, troll. Go back under the bridge.

I would call that more of a spelling-grammar-and-logic flame, but we needn't be picky.

So you have no explanation of your apparent inconsistency, then?

 

[Alliebubs]

No, you don't get away with proof by assertion. Saying something emphatically does not make it so. As it happens, I do not agree with you. The potential for a human being is there, but it takes a combination of mom and the fetus to make something into a human being. Remember, we're talking 1st trimester here, not 3rd trimester. I think I've made it clear already that 3rd trimester abortions are not for elective purposes in my book.

But rhetoric like yours attempts to bully me into accepting your definition. I don't. I'm not the only one who doesn't. The question is far from simple, and it absolutely not clear that

Since the debate is about that, no, you don't get to take that as a presumption. sorry.

How am I "bullying" my assertion? You happened to agree with JamesDillon regarding this organism belonging to the human species. I even articulated that there is a marked difference between said member of the human species and a "person", since that brings in all sorts of philosophical context into this argument. It is a simple case *when discussing whether the organism is a member of the human species*, but not so when discussing whether it's a person. Firstly, how is my argument rhetoric, if you've acknowledged this very argument as valid when JamesDillon articulates it? Or do you take an offended and contrary position for the sake of novelty?

Secondly, I am trying to discuss this matter in a way that allows us to see each other's point of view, insomuch as we can agree on certain things. There really is no need to be so dismissive, since, being one of the only one with an actual uterus discussing this thread, I think my opinion doesn't have to be automatically agreed on, certainly, but please refrain from labelling my arguments rhetorical, when I was actually articulating the same argument some other posters have made before me.

Thirdly, you've demonstrated a propensity to go on the defensive if we don't agree with you wholeheartedly:

Oooh, he can do a spelling flame.

Pure, smelly, troll. Go back under the bridge.

'Tis a shame. I'm sure you won't lose sleep over this, but I am disappointed. Even if we don't agree with one another, I really had expected more than grade-school trifling insults. Oh well.

 

[jj]

I would call that more of a spelling-grammar-and-logic flame, but we needn't be picky.

So you have no explanation of your apparent inconsistency, then?

There isn't any. You made it up.

Now go troll somewhere else.

 

[Abbyas]

It's jj, bringing the pro-choice and the pro-life together.


JJ, all animal beings can be classified into species. What else is a fetus/zygote if not human? It's a fetus, yes, but a human one.

 

[JamesDillon]

There isn't any. You made it up.

Please address the following post, which you ignored the first time:

As I have pointed out above, you have conceded that a fetus is a human in the "limited [biological] meaning" in which it is a member of the species homo sapiens. We have mutually agreed that this does not end the inquiry into whether a fetus can claim the legal and moral rights enjoyed by an adult human being.

Alliebubs then articulated the same argument, using "human" in the same sense of "a member of the human species" to which you had already agreed, to which you responded by accusing her of "bullying rhetoric." If Alliebubs and I are proposing to apply the same definition of "human" to a developing fetus, how is it consistent for you to accept my usage of that definition but reject hers?

 

[jj]

Please address the following post, which you ignored the first time:

I ignored nothing. Your attempt to cast a position on me that I do not hold is evident.

Stop stalking me with this foolishness.

 

[jj]

It's jj, bringing the pro-choice and the pro-life together.

Ad-hominem. Imagine my surprise.

JJ, all animal beings can be classified into species. What else is a fetus/zygote if not human? It's a fetus, yes, but a human one.

A fetus that can/may become a human, like you just said.

What does "human" mean? That's a question for a thread where people aren't trying to make things up.

 

[Alliebubs]

I ignored nothing. Your attempt to cast a position on me that I do not hold is evident.

Stop stalking me with this foolishness.

LOL, stalking you? That's great *sarcastic tone*. Alright, we will. Any one that wants to have a logical, cogent, and non-hostile discussion, let me know. This has degenerated into something ridiculous.

 

[jj]

LOL, stalking you? That's great *sarcastic tone*. Alright, we will. Any one that wants to have a logical, cogent, and non-hostile discussion, let me know. This has degenerated into something ridiculous.

If you learn how to represent your own position, rather than misrepresent mine in order to dispute it, get back to me.

 

[Alliebubs]

Ad-hominem. Imagine my surprise.


A fetus that can/may become a human, like you just said.

What does "human" mean? That's a question for a thread where people aren't trying to make things up.

Don't you get it? That IS the question I'm getting at! A "person" is what you want to discuss. But, you cannot deny the fact that a fetus *belongs to the human species*. How can anyone deny that an organism comprised solely of human DNA is anything but human?

 

[JamesDillon]

I ignored nothing.

Then where is your response to the two-paragraph post that I have now posted twice?

Your attempt to cast a position on me that I do not hold is evident.

Can you make it evident to the rest of us?