• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

In this context ("is human", etc.), "human" is not a synonym for "human being".

Sperm or ova can be human (a species identification). Human sperm or ova are not human beings in the haploid stage of our life cycle.

It is not a concept so requiring of brilliance that its understanding is just outside your grasp. It is not difficult.
 
psionl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You play stupid, troll word games. You are not remotely interacting in good faith here. You are claiming this is happening and it is not.
 
psionl0 said:
Agreed. A foetus is not a "legal person". Now back to humans . . . . . ..
Click to expand...

Why?
The point is that, legally, the foetus has no standing until birth.
Which is why all these abortion restriction laws are not on behalf of the unborn, but on behalf of the State/society that has an interest in not having too many pregnancy terminations.

So the real question is not between the wellbeing of mother and unborn, but between the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person and a society that thinks it can impose it's will on them.

No one is asking the child, it is presumed to be on the side of the State/Society on the issue.
But what if all unborn are actually anri-nativists?
 
Since we are talking about words so much:

The form fetus is the primary spelling in the United States, Canada, Australia, and in the scientific community, whereas foetus is still commonly used in the United Kingdom and some other Commonwealth nations. Sometimes considered less correct than fetus and suggested to be abandoned
Click to expand...

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/foetus
 
Stacyhs said:
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!
Click to expand...

psionl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

THIS is exactly what I'm talking about! You keep claiming that people are saying a "zygote/embryo/foetus isn't human when NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT! We're saying it isn't "A human/human being" not that it isn't 'human'. How many damn times do you have to be told that before you stop claiming we're saying otherwise?

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...

You have a very short memory then because I provided to you this "official source" that declares exactly what constitutes a “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”. Note that it does not include just the word "human", therefore 'human' is not included in the definition but zygotes/embryos/foetuses are included in the section "shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.


(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
Click to expand...
( U.S. Code § 8)

At the same time, I also cited this:

...the (Supreme) Court ruled: 1) that at no time within the history of western civilization had a society endowed a fetus with the rights of personhood; therefore (the Court not being empowered to create law from nothing), Texas' claim to personhood could not be sustained; 2) that the idea the fetus is a human being (for which the state has in interest in preserving)is earnestly disputed and has been disputed throughout the history of western civilization -- the prevailing view has been the "soul" is not present at conception but develops over time. Upon this record, the Court could not decide whether life (human life) arises at any time before birth. Without a definitive answer to that question, there was no basis for the Court to adopt Texas' view of fetal life and sustain Texas' quest to protect it.
Click to expand...
https://subscriptlaw.com/roe-v-wade/...xoCi2wQAvD_BwE

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT ZYGOTES, EMBRYOS, AND FETUS AREN'T 'HUMAN'.

Now will you please stop repeating the same damn disproven claim/argument over and over again?
 
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?”

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

*Or a woman who just suffered a miscarriage.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And anyone who argues otherwise is either lying or oblivious, imo.
 
psionl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand any of this do you? That is absolutely NOT how burden of proof works. YOURS IS THE POSITIVE CLAIM!

This is the claim YOU made... "To me, a "human being in an early stage of development" seems the most apt categorization of a zygote/embryo/foetus".
That is a POSITIVE CLAIM, you are claiming this to be true, and when you make that claim, its is up to YOU to prove it, not up to others to disprove

At this point, I will invoke Hitchens's razor..."what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence.". You have asserted that "human being in an early stage of development" seems the most apt categorization of a zygote/embryo/foetus", but you have failed to provide any supporting evidence to back that claim up. You claim fails and is dismissed.
.
.
 
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?”

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


*Or a woman who just suffered a miscarriage.
Click to expand...

Really? Who said it was "non-human"? Not me, or anyone else.

When someone has to resort to lying to support their argument, then they have no valid argument. It's 'lying' because no one is saying a developing fetus isn't "human" and that's been pointed out many, many times so the people who keep making that claim cannot, and are not, unaware of that.

This supposed outrage over the use of the technically correct word 'parasite' is in bad faith. It has nothing to do with it being incorrect, because it's not. This feigned outrage is just intentional pot stirring.
 
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?”

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


*Or a woman who just suffered a miscarriage.
Click to expand...

You framed the question in such a way as to get the outcome you wanted. Try this

Asked of a person in the street*:

“There are some who speak of a developing fetus as having a form of parasitic relationship with the mother. Similar in many respects to symbiosis. Thoughts?”
 
smartcooky said:
You framed the question in such a way as to get the outcome you wanted. Try this

Asked of a person in the street*:

“There are some who speak of a developing fetus as having a form of parasitic relationship with the mother. Similar in many respects to symbiosis. Thoughts?”
Click to expand...

Notice the inclusion of "non-human" which no one here is saying? It's just plain dishonest.
 
Stacyhs said:
Notice the inclusion of "non-human" which no one here is saying? It's just plain dishonest.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you don't understand.

People in general do not refer to the unborn as "parasites". If someone picks up a book on "parasites", they are not expecting to read about an unborn baby.

You can point to whatever dictionary or scientific text you wish, it does not change the fact that the term "parasite" carries with it an unfavorable connotation. And, imo, people who throw that term around in such a context are simply trying to dehumanize the unborn. Maybe it helps them sleep at night, I don't know.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
Is HeLa human?
Click to expand...
That's actually quite an interesting question, given how far the HeLa genome has shifted over the decades.

But your average cancer cells that are just jumped-up freckles with some oncogenes switched on? Yes.

Stacyhs said:
What is "HeLa"?
Click to expand...
Henrietta Lacks's cervical cancer cells, originally biopsied in 1951 and still alive and kicking all over the world in cancer research.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
I am not sure what you don't understand.

People in general do not refer to the unborn as "parasites". If someone picks up a book on "parasites", they are not expecting to read about an unborn baby.

You can point to whatever dictionary or scientific text you wish, it does not change the fact that the term "parasite" carries with it an unfavorable connotation. And, imo, people who throw that term around in such a context are simply trying to dehumanize the unborn.
Click to expand...

More likely, they are trying to convey the message that a fetus/zygote/embryo isn't a person.
 
Warp12 said:
I am not sure what you don't understand.

People in general do not refer to the unborn as "parasites". If someone picks up a book on "parasites", they are not expecting to read about an unborn baby.

You can point to whatever dictionary or scientific text you wish, it does not change the fact that the term "parasite" carries with it an unfavorable connotation. And, imo, people who throw that term around in such a context are simply trying to dehumanize the unborn. Maybe it helps them sleep at night, I don't know.
Click to expand...

As the saying goes: opinions are like ***holes; everyone has one.
 
"New Texas law bans abortion-inducing drugs after seven weeks pregnancy"

By the end of the year Texas may have even more restrictions on the ability to get an abortion after its Republican governor, Greg Abbott, quietly signed into law new restrictions banning the mail-order provision of abortion medication seven weeks into pregnancy.

The law prevents providers from prescribing abortion-inducing drugs more than seven weeks into pregnancy, instead of 10 weeks, the current limit. It takes effect on 2 December.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/22/texas-abortion-inducing-drugs-law-greg-abbott

Doubling down, I suppose. Is this also controversial, to some?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom