Texas bans abortion.

[JoeMorgue]

There's no logical reason why an egg and sperm aren't a "Potential Human" but a fetus/zygote/embryo is.

Except for the fact that when they are sperm and eggs both men and women are responsible for them after only the woman is by magic coincidence.

Again we're not buying that the anti-abortion side isn't anti-woman, it's just by magic coincidence that all their arguments work that way.

 

[acbytesla]

Maybe I should have said "were presumed to be God given rights" just to be more technically accurate.

Regardless, if rights are given by people then anything is on the cards.

Everything has always been in the cards. A black man born in America in the 1700s almost certainly would have been a slave and had little or no rights. Someone born in North Korea in the last half century has almost no rights and what rights they do have are subject to be taken away at any moment by Premier.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Still waiting for a non-troll response.

Yes, I think he is.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'm wondering if perhaps the value of a fetus is lower if the fetus is Texan. Texans would probably say it's higher value than other fetuses, but I'm pretty sure there'd be broad support suggesting it's the other way around.

I would be nervous if the fate of Texans were entirely in the hands of the rest of the country, but I can find no fault in your logic.

 

[turingtest]

Why the unnecessary rudeness and disrespect?

I see Joe has already dealt with this little whine, so I'll just let his answer stand for mine. I'll add, though, that if you think I've been rude and disrespectful, outside of what the MA allows here as "lively discussion," you should report it, not try to lean on it for part of your argument.

You said "society and the law decide these things for everyone based on what a few people like you believe" A few people like me? You think society and the law base it on what a few people believe? A few? Well I can tell you no one making law and no judge has ever consulted me. Also while there may be many pro-life people out there, I don't speak for all the pro-lifers, and the rest of the pro-lifers don't speak for me.

I don't how many people out there believe:

1. the fetus/zygote/embryo have some rights

2. but don't base that belief on religious reasons

3. and don't believe law making and Supreme Court decisions should be based
on religious beliefs.

How many on the pro-life side believe those things and yet have religious beliefs. I think not many. Yet that is what I believe. All this is to say that those whom think exactly how I think about abortion probably have very little influence on what law and society decides about abortion.

Wow. All that because you chose to ignore the "when" preceding the part of my post you quoted. No wonder you missed the point, you swerved to avoid it and ended up with a silly strawman instead.

no. one either is pregnant or not. By some right to life, I mean that the fetus/zygote/embryo has a right to live, but not as much right to live as a human being after being born. It has more right to live than a lifeform that is not developing into a human being, but less than that of a human being post birth. That is what I mean.

Why do you keep lopping off the parts of the posts that contain the actual point? Your whole argument about a fetus's right to life superseding the right of the mother to choose depends on there being no shades of gray for that fetal right- you don't get to make all these silly and specious distinctions when you're telling the woman bearing the child that she cannot make any distinctions at all (unless the fetus is a product of rape or incest, which presumably has less right to live than any of your other categories).

 

[Dr. Keith]

There's no logical reason why an egg and sperm aren't a "Potential Human" but a fetus/zygote/embryo is.

Except for the fact that when they are sperm and eggs both men and women are responsible for them after only the woman is by magic coincidence.

Again we're not buying that the anti-abortion side isn't anti-woman, it's just by magic coincidence that all their arguments work that way.

All a fetus needs is a willing woman to carry it to term.

All a sperm needs is a willing fertile woman to impregnate and carry it to term.

Sperm is just as valuable as fetus, if you just add one mythical willing woman. And some people seem ready to strike willing from the requirements.

 

[Warbler]

Of course they are. Tell me how you get a human being without them having developed? They are quite obviously a necessary step in the development of a human being.

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.

 

[Warbler]

I see Joe has already dealt with this little whine, so I'll just let his answer stand for mine. I'll add, though, that if you think I've been rude and disrespectful, outside of what the MA allows here as "lively discussion," you should report it, not try to lean on it for part of your argument.

I am not reading the person's posts. As for you, that may be what I end up doing with you. We will see.

Wow. All that because you chose to ignore the "when" preceding the part of my post you quoted. No wonder you missed the point, you swerved to avoid it and ended up with a silly strawman instead.

Whether it is when or if, it is the same thing. I don't think I myself will or could have any affect on law or public policy.

Why do you keep lopping off the parts of the posts that contain the actual point?

I quoted the parts I wanted to respond to. But I did read you entire post and I don't think I cut any part of the post that contained the actual point.

Your whole argument about a fetus's right to life superseding the right of the mother to choose depends on there being no shades of gray for that fetal right- you don't get to make all these silly and specious distinctions when you're telling the woman bearing the child that she cannot make any distinctions at all (unless the fetus is a product of rape or incest, which presumably has less right to live than any of your other categories).

Maybe you are right, I don't know. All I know is that the fetus/zygote/embryo is alive, is human in nature, and is developing into a human being. To me that makes it something of worth. I don't know what else to say.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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.

We've been over this, do you never learn anything? Any embryo can't go it alone either. Show me an embryo that isn't combined with a women that has made it to adulthood.

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

No. Why? That makes no sense. Find me a heart alone that has developed in to a human. Can't do that? Oh, then hearts must not be part of the development of a human.

This was a really stupid point you made. It's the exact opposite of what you need to make the point you are trying to make. And I should point even if this point you are trying to make were true it still wouldn't have anything to do with abortion.

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

Where the hell do you see me saying I can't see a difference???? I've actually spelled out some differences.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I am not reading the person's posts.

That's fine, I'm perfectly content to talk at you instead of to you.

 

[acbytesla]

You are taking too literal.

How do you decide what to take literally and what is metaphorical? That's the conundrum you face.
The story of creation in Genesis is entirely contradicted by physics and evolution. Do you believe in talking serpents or talking donkeys? Or the source of a man's strength residing in his hair like Samson? Or horns blowing down the stone walls of Jericho?

no, I don't peddle my religious beliefs. No every attempt to spread one's religion is "peddling". Peddling makes it seem like I would be selling my religious beliefs like a dishonest salesman sells used cars. You don't know me and you don't know anything about how I have attempted to spread my religious beliefs.

Fine, call it what you want. I'm not insulted by the term peddling. Selling in itself is not dishonest.

All I will say to that is a large percentage of the popular of the world would disagree with you that the Bible is 100% a word of historical fiction. You can believe it is if you wish, that is your choice.

So what? That is an ad populum fallacy. The truth of an item is not determined by the number of people that believe it.

I am sure that happened many times. But I do not believe that in regards to every single thing in the Bible.

Who said every single thing? The point is you have no reliable method to sort the wheat from the chaff.

I never said and never intended to say that we should conclude that God exists merely because it cannot be disproven. I believe God exists because of my faith, not because his existence can't be disproven. If you wish to go solely by logic, I agree you would no reason to believe God existed, merely that it was possible(since it can't be disproven)

You can't even say that Gods are possible. Just because you can imagine them and their existence has not been disproven, does not in fact make them possible.

Not logical, rational, scientific reason, I agree. I don't believe the Old Testament is 100% literally true.

I don't see how you can conclude much of any of it is true other than a few locations and a couple of events. How about the New Testament? Do you believe that Jesus was born a virgin? That he turned water into wine? That he rose from the dead? That he fed 6,000 people with a couple of fishes? That all the dead in Jerusalem walked the streets after his passing? That he was and is divine?

Yes I know they were written after the events of Jesus's life. I know John is different from Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But John is not 100% incompatible with Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is believed by many that John is an eyewitness account and was written by John the disciple. No way to prove that, of course. For all I know it is possible, but for all I know it wasn't written by John the disciple.

I'm sorry you cannot find any true biblical scholar who would say that any of the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. They are not written in the third person and the apostles that accompanied Jesus in the Gospels were almost certainly illiterate peasants who would have spoke Aramaic and not Ancient Greek which all of the gospels were written in. There is no reason to believe that the disciple John wrote the Gospel of John. John is said to have been written in 90 to 100CE 60 to 70 years after the stories of when Jesus's crucifixion occurred. No one today can say with any honesty that they have a clue who wrote any of the Gospels

Faith isn't about measuring odds.

No, it's about believing without assessment.

You chose to base all your believes on logic, reason, and science. You chose to only believe what it logic and rational to believe. You chose to believe only what can be scientifically proven. I choose otherwise.

You're right, I do. The word science is a Greek word that means knowledge. And the scientific method is the single most reliable method ever found for determining truth.

There is a reason that more than 90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Science do not believe in a Deity and the majority of Americans do.

But this does not mean I think logic, reason, and science should be totally thrown out the window and are of no importance. I believe quite the opposite.

At least you're somewhat evolved.

Okay, so prove to me logically, rationally, and scientifically that the fetus/zygote/embryo that is developing into a human being, has or should have no right to live.

Rights are subjective to the power of society. I can only say why I don't believe they should be granted such rights.

There is absolutely no reason for us to believe that an Embryo/Zygote/Fetus is sentient. That they have a any sense of themselves and reality. That they have a memory. And while they may react to stimuli they haven't a developed enough of a brain or the nerve connections to be sentient. What an Embryo/Zygote/Fetus might develop into is irrelevant because that isn't what it is. I think giving it rights because it might develop into something else is intellectually dishonest

I agree, my faith is not science and maybe be seen as ridiculous and absurd to some. But for the I-don't-know-many-th time, I am not basing my believe that the fetus/zygote/embryo has rights on my religious faith.

I take you at your word. But I understand why so many members doubt this. I can see why they might believe your anti-choice position is at least heavily influenced by the rhetoric of the religious.

 

[xjx388]

1. The word "horse" is not in the Constitution so you are not allowed to own one and ride one, right?

2. The word "cancer" is not in the Constitution so you are not allowed to have it treated if you get it, right?

3. The word "music" is not in the Constitution so you are not allowed to play it, write it or listen to it, right?

Of course, this is wrong, and there is a good reason why that is - its thanks to one of your Founding Fathers, John Adams

The presence or non-presence of a word in your Constitution is utterly irrelevant. The right to have an abortion might not specifically appear in the Constitution but is it covered by other rights granted therein. The Constitution cannot specify every possible right a person might be granted, which is why John Adams was so insistent on the inclusion in the Bill or Rights of the Ninth Amendment.

Ninth Amendment
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."​

In Roe v Wade, SCOTUS ruled that the right to an abortion was implicit (as in "capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed"). This is held in the meaning of the Ninth Amendment; which addresses both your claim, and my list above - it ensures that the Bill of Rights is not seen or interpreted as granting only the specific rights it addresses.

The court ruled that the right to an abortion was one of those non-enumerated rights covered by the Ninth Amendment. Although not touched on by SCOTUS, it could also be argued under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment that the term "liberty" as used in that clause means "freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint upon an individual." , so a blanket ban on abortion could be seen as an unreasonable restraint, therefore a violation of the Fifth Amendment

NOTE: I learned all this stuff in Current Affairs and Civics classes in the 6th and 7th form (year 12 &13 - 1972 & 73), in New Zealand, as it was happening in the US. Don't American kids have Civics classes at school - are they not taught about their own Constitution?
.
.

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.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

There's the problem with the 9th Amendment and unenumerated rights. But the opposite problem is posed simply by the existence of the Bill of Rights to begin with. That's why the 9th Amendment exists.

 

[Warbler]

We've been over this, do you never learn anything? Any embryo can't go it alone either. Show me an embryo that isn't combined with a women that has made it to adulthood.

The embryo attaches to the uterus(which is the condition of the embryo when we are talking about aborting it), but it is not the same as sperm combining with egg. I correct me if I am wrong, but I think a chemical reaction occurs with sperm combines with egg.

No. Why? That makes no sense

So don't compare egg alone and sperm alone to embryo.

. Find me a heart alone that has developed in to a human. Can't do that? Oh, then hearts must not be part of the development of a human.

This was a really stupid point you made. It's the exact opposite of what you need to make the point you are trying to make. And I should point even if this point you are trying to make were true it still wouldn't have anything to do with abortion.

The point I was trying to make is that is the embryo that is developing into a human. Sperm alone doesn't do that. Egg alone doesn't do that. Btw, neither does a heart.

Where the hell do you see me saying I can't see a difference???? I've actually spelled out some differences.

well, you did compare sperm and egg alone to an embryo:

OK. All sperm and eggs are too.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The embryo attaches to the uterus(which is the condition of the embryo when we are talking about aborting it), but it is not the same as sperm combining with egg. I correct me if I am wrong, but I think a chemical reaction occurs with sperm combines with egg.

Chemical reactions also occur when the embryo attaches to the uterus. Chemical reactions occur every millisecond of the existence of sperm, eggs, embryos, fetuses and full grown people. What excuse are you going to make up now for not taking your own criteria seriously?

So don't compare egg alone and sperm alone to embryo.

But the thing you said was important about the embryo is also true of the sperm and the egg.

The point I was trying to make is that is the embryo that is developing into a human. Sperm alone doesn't do that. Egg alone doesn't do that. Btw, neither does a heart.

And this is wrong because embryos don't do that either.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So don't compare egg alone and sperm alone to embryo.

Then don't compare a clump of cells to a human. Or a fertilized egg that hasn't yet affixed to the uterine wall. Or any of the other dozen points in development.

You're just picking an arbitrary point in the process and going "Yep it's obviously a..... *pause for dramatic effect* pOTEnTial humAN now! That's obvious!"

 

[Warbler]

Chemical reactions also occur when the embryo attaches to the uterus. Chemical reactions occur every millisecond of the existence of sperm, eggs, embryos, fetuses and full grown people.

but not same as when sperm combines with egg.

But the thing you said was important about the embryo is also true of the sperm and the egg.

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 wrong because embryos don't do that either.

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)

 

[Warbler]

How do you decide what to take literally and what is metaphorical?

The statement that I said you were taking too literal was something I said about believing with the heart. Obviously didn't mean that literally.

That's the conundrum you face.
The story of creation in Genesis is entirely contradicted by physics and evolution.

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

Do you believe in talking serpents or talking donkeys?

I believe God or Satan could take the form of a snake or donkey and talk.

Or the source of a man's strength residing in his hair like Samson?

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

Or horns blowing down the stone walls of Jericho?

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

So what? That is an ad populum fallacy. The truth of an item is not determined by the number of people that believe it.

true. but there is strength in numbers.

Who said every single thing? The point is you have no reliable method to sort the wheat from the chaff.

That is correct.

You can't even say that Gods are possible. Just because you can imagine them and their existence has not been disproven, does not in fact make them possible.

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

I don't see how you can conclude much of any of it is true other than a few locations and a couple of events.

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

How about the New Testament? Do you believe that Jesus was born a virgin? That he turned water into wine? That he rose from the dead? That he fed 6,000 people with a couple of fishes? That all the dead in Jerusalem walked the streets after his passing? That he was and is divine?

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)

I'm sorry you cannot find any true biblical scholar who would say that any of the Gospels are eyewitness accounts.

I suppose not.

They are not written in the third person

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

and the apostles that accompanied Jesus in the Gospels were almost certainly illiterate peasants who would have spoke Aramaic and not Ancient Greek which all of the gospels were written in.

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

There is no reason to believe that the disciple John wrote the Gospel of John.

You are correct, other than tradition.

John is said to have been written in 90 to 100CE 60 to 70 years after the stories of when Jesus's crucifixion occurred.

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.

No one today can say with any honesty that they have a clue who wrote any of the Gospels

That is correct.

No, it's about believing without assessment.

I suppose you can view it that way.

You're right, I do.

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.

The word science is a Greek word that means knowledge. And the scientific method is the single most reliable method ever found for determining truth.

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

There is a reason that more than 90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Science do not believe in a Deity and the majority of Americans do.

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

At least you're somewhat evolved.

Thanks.

Rights are subjective to the power of society. I can only say why I don't believe they should be granted such rights.

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.

There is absolutely no reason for us to believe that an Embryo/Zygote/Fetus is sentient.

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

What an Embryo/Zygote/Fetus might develop into is irrelevant because that isn't what it is. I think giving it rights because it might develop into something else is intellectually dishonest

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? 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?

I take you at your word. But I understand why so many members doubt this. I can see why they might believe your anti-choice position is at least heavily influenced by the rhetoric of the religious.

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.

 

[JoeMorgue]

but not same as when sperm combines with egg.

What's the difference?

(Someone else ask him so he'll answer)

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

Find me a human that was developed from a fertilized egg alone, without a woman.