• 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:
So is your argument that it is a part of her body right up until the umbilical cord is cut? Maybe the baby becomes part of the mother's body again during breast feeding.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Clearly, you have no intention of being serious. No point in going any further, then.
 
psionl0 said:
Then it is a poor tactic which (as you have seen) leads to endless semantic arguments about what exactly is growing inside of the woman.
Click to expand...
There's always going to be endless arguments about something or other, because the people arguing for abortion restrictions are not doing so in good faith. This is evidenced by how quickly they flip between "aww the widdle baybies!" and "sluts need to be punished!" despite the two being entirely independent lines of moral reasoning. The idea is to shut them down quickly enough to make it plain that that is what's happening, and one day perhaps attach a dynamo and generate useful power from their vacillating.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, let's all dishonestly pretend it's the pro-choice are the ones who are bogging the discussion down in an endless semantic categorization death-spiral.

I said pages ago I don't give a crap if you want to define the clump of cells as a total alive human being with personhood and a soul that the baby Jeebus personally returned to sprinkled upon it, abortion is still morally acceptable and the law should reflect that.
 
Last edited:
Again as I said FOUR DAYS AGO

JoeMorgue said:
Again more restrictive abortion laws don't reduce abortions. This is one of those facts. I'd like one of the anti-abortion people to be intellectually honest long enough to acknowledge that.

So none of this matters, it's all a red herring.

Nobody cares about your "opINioN" about the humanity rating of the widdle pitty baby fetuses because this law will not protect them.
Click to expand...
 
If you want to make abortion illegal, vote Republican.

If you want to actually reduce the number of abortions performed, vote Democrat.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
Your mistake here is assuming your personal moral code is some kind of universal moral code.

I guarantee you it is not.
Click to expand...

We've been over this a dozen times.

"Well, that's just like, your opinion man" is not an answer, response, or meaningful statement.

Fine it's a totally random and arbitrary subjective opinion. Whatever.

Why should we default on the side of "no abortions?"

Declaring everything meaningless and without standards doesn't make you right.

Again I've watched wrong people suddenly decide everything is just an opinion A LOT in my life. I'm over it.

Nearly 80 pages into this and yet again someone waltzed in to go "You know... it's not that simple" and drop the mic like they said anything worth saying.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
There's always going to be endless arguments about something or other, because the people arguing for abortion restrictions are not doing so in good faith. This is evidenced by how quickly they flip between "aww the widdle baybies!" and "sluts need to be punished!" despite the two being entirely independent lines of moral reasoning. The idea is to shut them down quickly enough to make it plain that that is what's happening, and one day perhaps attach a dynamo and generate useful power from their vacillating.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, countering a false claim with another false claim is not valid critical thinking.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Why should we default on the side of "no abortions?"
Click to expand...

Where did that come from?

My point was, take the statements,

“Abortion is still morally acceptable” (yours)

“Abortion is still morally unacceptable” (a vast number of folks)

Neither is objectively correct or incorrect. Both are defensible based on differing personal moral codes.

And I’d further hold neither has a place in a skeptical discussion on abortion.
 
Warbler said:
I am not sure what difference is make whether the word "different" or "unique" is used there. The point is still the same: the DNA is not the same as the mother's.



true, we don't say twins are same person. But, we tested two DNA samples and found that they didn't match each other, we could and would conclude that the two DNA samples did not come from the same person.
Click to expand...

And you might be wrong.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Where did that come from?
Click to expand...

Well, the fact that it's only the people who have a problem with abortions who are trying to shut down the discussion by playing the "Well it's only an opinion card."

"It's just like, your opinion" is just argumentative solipsism, trying to get your side on the default by declaring nothing is certain.

Everything's just an opinion and there are no facts. Fine, what's the plan? The most stubborn side wins?
 
Again literally nothing changes if you define the little clump of cells with a specific term. Literally nothing.
 
Stacyhs said:
You're moving the goalposts. That a cat or dog has less rights than a sentient being was not the question.
Nor did I ask you about "living things that aren't sentient (and) will never be sentient". I asked you if a sentient being has less rights than a sentient being.
Click to expand...

You said "Would you agree that a non-sentient 'being' has less rights that a sentient one?" You did not specify if the non-sentient being was or was not developing into a sentient being, and I believe there is a difference between the two.

Stacyhs said:
You're resorting to "but, but , but..." yet still agreeing that a fetus, before a point of development, is not a sentient being. So...does that fetus that has not developed into a sentient being, have as many rights as an already sentient being?
Click to expand...

maybe not as many rights, but I think it has more than a non-sentient being that will never become sentient. For example I think an embryo may have more rights than an amoeba. Also while you may believe the sentience only comes at birth, I think it possible that sentience comes before birth.


Aridas said:
To poke at the bigger picture, the relationship is more complicated than simply being able to say that they're either the same or not the same without distinct qualifiers. As I keep repeating, biology is messy, with reproduction being of particular note there. With that said, though, as long as you aren't intending to push that DNA argument attempt, I'm not going to push further there.
Click to expand...

while biology is messy, I find it difficult to believe that the embryo is an actual part of the mother and not its own separate lifeform. I mean just when I change from being a part of my Mom and into being me?
 
cosmicaug said:
Incorrect. The whole point of meiosis is that we have a haploid sampling of the parent (via reassortment of chromosomes and via crossing over events).
Click to expand...

okay, maybe I was wrong to say that the sperm DNA matches that of the father and egg DNA alone matches the DNA of the mother.

cosmicaug said:
And you might be wrong.
Click to expand...

not if we were talking about a chimera. Also, would agree that in order to rule out a suspect, you would have to test the crime scene sample against all sets of DNA that the suspect has(if the suspect has multiple sets of DNA). If doesn't match any set belonging to the suspect(including the DNA of any transplanted parts), you know the crime scene sample came from a different person.
 
Random said:
If you want to make abortion illegal, vote Republican.

If you want to actually reduce the number of abortions performed, vote Democrat.
Click to expand...

unfortunately voting Republican these days means voting for Trump or Trump allies. I can't stand Trump.

I also don't like the extreme left wing Dems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom