Pages

Monday, May 5, 2014

The "Invisibles"

[Today's guest post by Susi O. Fanabba is part of our paid blogging program.]

A few weeks ago, we celebrated National Sibling Day. This Sunday, we will celebrate Mother's Day. And next month, we have Father's Day. For many people, including many pro-lifers, these holidays are a cause for joy. But I implore you to be sensitive; many people have come to dread this time of year. Children who have lost parents are an obvious example. Let us also remember the "invisible" sufferers:

Those "only" children whose siblings have died.

Those, like me, who have lost a sibling to abortion.

Those parents who have lost their only children, and are therefore unlikely to receive any recognition on the days set aside for mothers and fathers.

Those post-abortive women who relive their pain each Mother's Day.

Those single parents who are raising children on their own due to the loss of a partner. (My mom is in this category, having been widowed at a young age with four kids. While it's been almost 20 years, it's still painful for us on Father's Day.)

We as a movement should do more to acknowledge these "invisible" victims. If you know someone who may find Mother's Day or Father's Day difficult, please consider sending them a message to check up on them, etc. Many of my friends who have lost children have been so touched to know that their babies are remembered.

672 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 672   Newer›   Newest»
lady_black said...

I guess the ability to sustain one's own biological functions has a lot to do with it. No longer needing to have someone breathe, digest and eliminate for it. The umbilical arteries and vein cease to function, the holes in the heart close up, the placental connection is severed and the organ dies and is sloughed off. Voila' an individual comes into being. Maybe you were unaware that a lot more happens then merely "sliding out of a vagina."

Rainbow Walker said...

Wrong again. Being a juridical person means actuating those rights. The slave argument is a non sequitur. A slave is one who could cognate and recognize the law and all its forms, sign contracts and so forth. A fetus cannot. Further complicating this is the fact the fetus INHABITS a juridical person. A slave did not.

“Also, no true scotsman logical fallacy.”

Prochoice christians can exist because they were brainwashed at youth but slowly learned reason. Prolife atheists are an impossibility. And no, not believing in the supernatural is not the
definition of an atheist. An atheist is one who doesn’t believe in a god, an afterlife, religion or any dogma whatsoever. An atheist by definition is governed by rational and they are usually educated [not religious education]. Believers follow what others tell them. You are a perfect example. Therefore by definition an atheist cannot be prolife.

Suba gunawardana said...

Most importantly, once born you are no longer inhabiting another person's body, thereby violating their body.

Rainbow Walker said...

Coma patients do give up their
rights. That’s why a lawyer will tell you to make advanced directives so your wishes are known prior to hospitalization. Doctors often pull life support on john/jane does who have no family present or advance directives.

Rainbow Walker said...

If you convey juridical personhood to fetuses, where does it end? As my law professor said, a Jain could argue the personhood of viruses or bacteria. Then we would have to forfeit all medical
treatment because of someone else believes.

lady_black said...

Once again, I do not see sentience as a qualifier for being a person. The chance of recovering needs to be taken into consideration. Once again, your "Baby Doe Law" doesn't require that futile care be given. Some examples of futile care might be (and this is not a laundry list) the attempted resuscitation of a 21 week fetus, a child in the end stage of any terminal disease process, a child who is brain dead. In addition, some courts are starting to rule against extreme interventions in favor of parents. A good example of that is the recent case of the little Amish girl who's parents resisted chemotherapy for her cancer. Maybe you didn't fully comprehend my post or you wouldn't be asking these questions. All we have to go by in making decisions is the best educated guesses of the best physicians, or "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty."

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

That is the case in UK, but here in the US we have a different standard. Patients with brain stems are alive, and medical treatment can only be denied if the patient requested so in a living will or if the patient has given power of attorney to someone else while still sentient. Patients with brain stem function don't need life support, they do need feeding tubes. In the US, death, legally as well as medically speaking, is when the organism ceases to function as a unified whole, which occurs upon whole brain death, if the organism is developed enough to have a brain.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Conjoined twins cannot get separation surgery unless both twins consent, even if one twin is unequally dependent upon the other twin for survival. Why not the same standard for abortion?

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Well, are conjoined twins persons? They depend on each others bodies for survival. In the case of Anastasia Dogaru, she depends on her twin Tatiana's body for kidney filltration, since she has no working kidneys of her own. Should Anastasia Dogaru be considered a person, if personhood is dependent upon being able to live separated from someone else's body?

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

I acknowledged that Baby Doe does not cover futile care. I am talking about cases where the child has a good chance of recovering from the coma.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

One could also deny personhood to human infants because some bioethicists believe that they aren't persons. You are using the slippery slope logical fallacy.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Yes, if the medical care is futile and the patient has no chance or a poor chance of recovery. I am talking about temporary coma patients who have a good chance of recovery.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

An infant cannot really cognate, recognize the law and all of its forms, and and sign contracts. By your logic, infants aren't persons.

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Isn't it rather arrogant to assert that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and brainwashed?

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

Do you believe in giving equal rights to animals?

Tullia_Ciceronis said...

I looked through the link that you provided me. I found lots of info on involuntary termination of parental rights, and info on parents terminating rights because they cannot care for the child. I did not find info on parents terminating rights becuase they want to get out of paying child support that they can afford. As I all of the other lawyers that I have consulted have told me that judges almost never allow relinquishment if the parent is just trying to get out of paying child support that they can afford, since family court decisions must be made in the best interests of the child.

lady_black said...

Parents make those decisions in consultation with doctors. Nothing has changed. That's what's known as a "feel-good" law. If the parents and doctor disagree, a court sorts it out.

lady_black said...

I've heard this argument before. Never commented on it, but it doesn't impress me. If the kidneys belong to Tatiana, and her sister's dependence on them endangered her life, she should be able to separate. Conjoined twins, like all other identical twins, are two people who happened to malform in such a way that sometimes organs are missing in one, and the other is sort of parasitic on the person who has the needed organ(s). One conjoined twin is often sacrificed to save the other. But yes, they are both persons. They have both survived birth. If it comes down to losing both, then a choice must be made to save one or let both die. Who knows what decision would be made.? I would likely (reluctantly) choose to abort such a pregnancy.

Rainbow Walker said...

Once again you ignore the fact that infants no longer inhabit a juridical person. Yours is the fallacy. Your path
would lead to personhood for viruses, bacteria, plants and animals. Then medical treatment would be banned and the only food we could eat would be synthetic.

Rainbow Walker said...

Infants are not juridical persons.

Rainbow Walker said...

You haven’t responded to my
questions and have no logical rebuttals. Is it arrogance to recognize realty?

john lind said...

Yeah right, because some virus or bacteria will eventually develop to the point that they can post on websites and assert that they have rights.

Suba gunawardana said...

No, I am saying fetuses should NOT have equal rights.

If you oppose the killing of fetuses for whatever reason, you have to oppose killing of animals too. Because the EXACT SAME reasons apply to animals.

If your only justification is the "humanity" of fetuses, then that sounds like religious-based illogic; the "human superiority syndrome"

Pro-lifers wish to take away other people's right to kill fetuses for their necessity & convenience, while retaining your own rights to kill all kinds of other individuals for your own necessity & convenience.

Doesn't work that way.

-If it's OK to kill for your necessity & convenience, you cannot oppose others exercising the same right.

-If killing is wrong, it doesn't become magically OK when you condone it.

john lind said...

Yet another brilliant pro-feticide bumper sticker truism. If you are against the dismemberment of unborn humans then you have to be dancing for joy when people are killed in wars or by capital punishment.
No non-human animal has ever asserted rights. If one could, or would, it would be reasonable to grant all members of that particular species rights.
A ZEF, being a member of homo sapiens should be granted rights because it is a member of the only species that can assert rights.

Suba gunawardana said...

When fetuses can post on websites & assert their rights, THEN they can have right to life.

Suba gunawardana said...

No animal has ever asserted rights? Neither has a embryo/fetus, EVER.

MY argument is NOT that animals should have rights, but that fetuses should NOT.

john lind said...

So those that are incapable of typing or don't have a computer should be denied the right to life?
What if the person will learn to type in 5 years. Is it reasonable to assume because he or she is currently unable to type, he or she should be denied rights?

Rainbow Walker said...

They still have their rights rescinded. This is for their protection. Case law supports this. Long ago individuals
would forge signatures of people in comas in contracts. Courts recognized that individuals who were non compos mentis were not juridical persons under common or statutory law.

Rainbow Walker said...

Evidently you didn’t. Keep
reading.

SUBCHAPTER B. PROCEDURES

Sec. 161.101. PETITION ALLEGATIONS. A petition for the termination of the
parent-child relationship is sufficient without the necessity of specifying the
underlying facts if the petition alleges in the statutory language the ground for the termination and that termination is in the best interest of the child.

Grounds include economical and health.

Suba gunawardana said...

According to YOUR logic, Yes. I was responding to YOUR argument that animals shouldn't have rights simply because they cannot type or assert their rights. If that's the case, neither should fetuses.

john lind said...

You are missing the point.
If any single animal in a particular species could assert rights, it would be reasonable to grant every animal in that species rights.
Homo sapiens is the only species that has had at least one member assert rights. As such, every member of homo sapiens should be granted rights.

Rainbow Walker said...

Actually they might evolve to that point. Scientist have already fashioned micro mazes for single celled organisms which can navigate them.

Furthermore they are more aware then you are.

Rainbow Walker said...

Ignoring the fact that the fetus resides
in a juridical person. But I guess her right don’t matter?

Suba gunawardana said...

Those "rights" are made-up concepts made by humans for their own benefit, AT THE EXPENSE OF non-humans.

And why cannot animals "assert their rights" in this human-infested world?

Because humans subjugate and exploit them for no reason other than "because we can".

If it's perfectly fine to kill/exploit/torture animals "because we can", what's wrong with killing fetuses for the exact same reason?

Not that there aren't far better reasons for abortion, but "because we can" seems ti be a reason you can relate to.

Rainbow Walker said...

Many members of the race homo sapiens are not granted rights for obvious reasons. Infants and children are not
juridical persons, people in commas and anyone declared non compos mentis and of course criminals. I guess you would have children signing contracts had having sex at six? But of course most believers love child brides.

john lind said...

When any member of that single celled organism can assert rights then every member of that species can be granted rights.

"Furthermore they are more aware then you are." Gee that sounds like a statement made by one that is "governed by rational."

purrtriarchy said...

Feeding tube = life support. And next of kin is permitted to have it removed if there is no hope of recovery.

Rainbow Walker said...

Obviously you don’t understand rights. If only one can assert rights and all others cannot then why would the right “wash over” to the others by default? Just because one child is emancipated doesn’t make all children emancipated.

“Gee that sounds like a statement made by one that is "governed by rational."

Obviously. Painfully so.

john lind said...

Sure her rights matter, and she can do whatever she wants with her body. The ZEF is not her body. The close proximity does not cause the ZEF to become her body.

Suba gunawardana said...

The fact it's living inside her body (thus violating her body) gives her the right to expel the intruder IF she so wishes.

If a rapist is violating your body, you may accommodate him at the expense of your body, but you certainly have the right to kill him to get him off your body.

john lind said...

Obviously you don't understand different levels of rights. The right to not be aggressed against is a universal right, whether it is respected or not. A property right is not universal...you don't have the right to own the same property that I own.

You might want to check your use of juricdical person...

A juridical person is a legal entity created by the law which is not a natural person, such as a corporation created under state statutes. It is a legal entity having a distinct identity and legal rights and obligations under the law.

john lind said...

So if a third party handcuffed us together, I have the right to kill you and you have the right to kill me because each of us is violating the other's body through loss of liberty?

Rainbow Walker said...

Yes. According to the law you have the right to escape, regardless of the consequences.

Rainbow Walker said...

Yes it’s not part of her body, but inside. Under the fourth she has the right to be secure in her person. That’s why the law has abolished forced sterilization, lobotomies and other cruelties. The state has one of few choices with a criminal even: death, incarceration,
probation or fine. No cruel and unusual punishments. She should be able to evict anything [even bacteria] from her body if she so chooses. That’s why the
Jain argument is interesting.

We have only explored the right of privacy under roe. I cannot wait until someone uses the fourth and all restrictions will vanish.

john lind said...

Again, you have no concept of differing types of rights. "But of course most believers love child brides." Once again, quite a rational statement. It would be like me saying, "all pro-feticide atheists are self-assuming jerks", based solely on your demeanor.

john lind said...

What if you handcuffed me to you and threw away the key. Do you have the right to kill me when you tire of being handcuffed to me?

Suba gunawardana said...

Right, and what is not a juridical person? A fetus.

EVEN IF a fetus were a person (juridical or natural or whatever), NO person has a right to inhabit another person's body without their consent.

Rainbow Walker said...

I studied constitutional law in depth. Property rights are universal, see the fourth amendment. One must prove ones claims [or rights] to property, once proven an individual has the right be
secure in them.

Obviously you don’t understand juridical person. Cutting and pasting doesn’t cut it.

Juridical persons are fictitious [artifice or artificial] created by statue and framework [constitutional] capable of having legal rights and duties within a certain legal system, such as to enter into contracts, sue, and be sued. These rights are not fixed but are moveable, and revocable.

Can a fetus be held libel if it
kills the woman? Can a fetus enter into a contract? And more importantly how does that affect the rights of the woman?

purrtriarchy said...

There is a right not to be UNJUSTLY killed. Unborn humans violate and assault their hosts. Abortion is self defense.

Rainbow Walker said...

How does that apply in the context of your original question? In this case I would be the aggressor. Therefore the question is used to elicit an emotional response.

What you fail to understand is life [or it’s protection at all costs] was not of great concern to the framers.
Rights were and are. When one commits homicide the law may use these words to
quantify action, but what they are in the end concerned with are the violation
of one’s rights.

I can kill you to protect my life. Simple as that. If you are threatening my life. You are simply attempting to elicit emotion to justify an illogical stance.

Rainbow Walker said...

My JD says otherwise. Go to law
school. Then we’ll talk.

As for the later statements, thank you proving me correct. All forced birth morons do love marring child brides. Remember it’s illegal in these parts.

MarcusFenix said...

Morality can find grounding in religion, but does not require it...unless you would like to tell atheists and agnostics that they can't possibly be ethical unless they are religious.

The definition of morality is the ability to define distinctions between right and wrong. People who are religious use their faith as the underpinning for such an idea, but those without faith are still capable of making such judgments. It's not terribly complicated.

MarcusFenix said...

Your professor would be right that they can argue that point...but they'd also be terribly wrong and would lose the argument quickly.

Science has established repeatedly that a virus or bacteria doesn't fall under what we consider the definition of life. Your professor would have been remiss to not mention the fact that this argument has been had, and settled, many times over...unless you chose not to mention that part. Or...he's very wrong. Or, misleading. Or uninformed.

Here's some info:

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3316
http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-viruses-alive-2004/

Suba gunawardana said...

Morality? What is moral or ethical about the "human superiority syndrome" ?

MarcusFenix said...

Since that's not a real syndrome, I have no idea.

Of course, you're trying to move away from the very point you started with. Your question was answered.

Suba gunawardana said...

Where does the idea come from that an unwanted non-sentient human
fetus deserves more consideration than a fully grown fully sentient
animal (or a tree, which actually helps other life)?

I thought "humans come first at the expense of all else" was a strictly Christian concept.

MarcusFenix said...

There's a problem in your logic, DC...but not surprising.

The "structures that give rise to sentience" are there. If they were not, you wouldn't have the capability to ask that very question, because those "structures" don't magically pop into existence at the moment you exit the birth canal.

Even if you make the argument that the structures are under-developed and want to exclude them...then it means they are there and under-developed and nothing more.

You're not making a solid argument here.

purrtriarchy said...

They don't exist. Period. Stop with the lame semantics.

And zygotes are a genetic blueprint...and the embryonic brain and fetal brain prior to 24-27 weeks ain't nothing like the brain of a fetus or baby capable of sentience.

MarcusFenix said...

You do know what "sentience" means, right? So, a 14 week old fetus has eyes...but they're just there for show? Those structures exist, and develop, over the course of a lifetime...from the point of inception. It's not semantics, but the fact you believe it to be so is where your error starts.

If you want to make the apples and oranges comparison, you're welcome to do so. Since, for example, babies can't experience the world like you, they're not really sentient either. Their experiences are, at best, stunted and worthless. Same thing with the elderly, the blind, those in a coma, the deaf, and everyone else who relies on those "structures" to experience sentience.

The problem with the "capable" label is that there is a point where a fetus -is- capable. A point where it will become -more- capable. You're basing your weak ideal on what is happening at a specific moment, rather than taking in the bigger picture. Sorry, no points DC.

purrtriarchy said...

http://willcov.com/bio-consciousness/front/Thalamocortical%20system.htm

Potentiality is not actuality. The thalamcortical connections that give rise to consciousness don't exist in a pre 24 wk fetus and definitely not in a single cell Zygote.

Until then, they are mere mindless animal organisms.

MarcusFenix said...

Immediately, your argument is tainted by multiple pejorative and subjective items, which you then try to tie into some objective answer. Sorry, but it doesn't always work that way.

You immediately go with the "unwanted" angle, which is weak (as in, not always the case, not a permanent condition, etc) at best, parade "non-sentient" as a some defining item of note, and then state that somehow, a person who believes in pro life must therefore be trying to give greater rights to one living being over another. It's not that way, and your bias does nothing to push that farther.

The "humans come first" ideology is ingrained in us as a species, as it is every species. Biologically, living things seek to propagate and strengthen themselves. It's not even close to being an only-human trait. Breaking it down to just people though, consider the concept for a moment. No person, sans religion, is greedy? They don't look out for themselves, seek to fulfill whatever biological or psychological imperative they have, cannot seek out motive or desire outside of religion, and so on?

Hardly.

MarcusFenix said...

Your dodge is subtle, but still there.

You started with this:

"A mindless ZEF can do none of that, because the structures that give rise to sentience simply do not exist."

But those structures, and their ability to develop, do exist. Like i said, they don't magically just pop into existence, or some fairy just drops them off one day. Those connections develop, along with everything else.

Of course, this somehow doesn't even touch the idea that sentience isn't a part of the discussion, or that sentience removes the moral problem with abortion, since it does nothing of the kind. It's an interesting discussion item, but bears no real weight otherwise, since sentience isn't a measuring stick.

purrtriarchy said...

Ability to develop is not the same as actually having the capacity for certain functions.

You have the ability to develop into a corpse. This does not mean that we can bury you right now. Potential is not actual.

Zef's are mindless animal organisms. We don't subjugate people to other people, let alone to animals. Zef's are mere animals.

MarcusFenix said...

Round we go again...

I didn't say it was. If you're trying to conflate the two and then knock it down, then you'll have to try a different straw man. That one isn't terribly good.

Faulty analogy. You don't "develop" into a corpse...though there are a few people who look it. You either -are- a corpse, or you are not. You can develop sickness and then become a corpse, but there's no real sliding scale for "becoming" a corpse outside of that. It's an all or nothing situation. There's no one who is, in context, half dead or mostly dead, or developing dead. Either you're dead, or you're not.

"Zef's are mindless animal organisms"

Interesting, since your first message is all about semantics, then you engage in it repeatedly. How about "undeveloped human organisms"...which is both factually correct and not de-humanizing...would you still say semantics? Clearly, there is a difference between a zebra (or, insert your favorite See and Say animal here) and a human, in every way. And, bonus points, in every stage of development. Unless you think we all start out as an animal and become human later? That would be an interesting discussion.

Oddly enough, we have all kinds of laws to protect animals...yet you can't somehow imagine, or want to, as to why someone would want to provide protections to the same developing members of our own species.

purrtriarchy said...

Ageing = developing into a corpse.

Not all humans are persons. No mind, no person. Zef's are so mindless that I would say they are below animals.

MarcusFenix said...

LOL..um, no. That's not even in the ballpark.

Aging (or ageing for the British) isn't a development into corpse. That...isn't even close to being accurate. Aging is the changing differences in an organism over time...you don't "grow" into a corpse. Aging is...aging. You will eventually -be- a corpse, given enough time and circumstance, but there's no stage where we go "well, they're about 50% corpsified!"

"Not all humans are persons. No mind, no person."

So, coma patients aren't people. Got it.

I don't want to bore you with definitions to words and stuff, since you apparently have the "Dunce Commander Dictionary" all ready to go, but...you should check the Oxford definition of "person". That might help with your argument.

"Zef's are so mindless that I would say they are below animals."

And yet, animals never change. Your dog can't be taught his ABC's one day, or how to fill out a drivers license application. Your cat can't pay the cable bill, or recite Patrick Henry's famous "Give me Liberty" speech. You're still in the mindset that because potential doesn't = right this very second, that clearly it all fits into one category. It doesn't, and busts your "animals" idea in all sorts of fun ways.

Of course, if animals are so mindless, why can't i go out and curbstomp the neighbors dog? It's mindless and I'm sentient, so...shouldn't that be ok? The fact you're making a "might makes right" argument in regards to the topic isn't lost on anyone who might read this.

purrtriarchy said...

Ageing is the process of growing old. The body breaks down and eventually you die of this. Its part of the human life cycle!!!

Your average coma patient has the capacity for sentience, they are temporarily not using it. The capacity literally does not exist in a zef.

As for animals...

1) last I checked, we eat them in the millions

2) the neighbors dog can't use your body as life support

3) if a mosquito bites you, you are within your rights to swat it, even though it *needs* your body to sustain its own life.

MarcusFenix said...

"Ageing is the process of growing old. The body breaks down and eventually you die of this. Its part of the human life cycle!!!"

Correct. But you don't age -into- a corpse. There's no magic cut off line where , "Oh, Ms Sophie's 92nd birthday is tomorrow...she'll be a poor corpse!". Aging is a part of life, but the idea that you "develop" into a corpse is nonsensical and incorrect. Nice try to paint it differently, but no.

"Your average coma patient has the capacity for sentience, they are temporarily not using it."

Which makes it no different than a 24 week old fetus. The fact you can't seem to recognize that fact is a bias on your part. If you knew a coma patient was going to be moving around, interacting with their environment, trying to communicate with people, and could convey basic wants or needs in say, 3 and a half months, you'd be considered a monster for pulling the plug and letting them die. I do so love it when your own statements work with me. :)

As for animals:

1. Yes. We don't eat people. So what?

2. No, it can't...but now you're abandoning your point to move on to the Violinist experiment. I'm guessing you conceded the point prior. You do know that even the woman who created the Violinist thought experiment recognized a fetus as human, even agreed with most pro-life stances, but simply said abortion should be allowed anyway. I'll let you process that for a bit.

3. Since humans arent bugs, you're arguing apples and oranges, with no real point to your original position. No points there either.

MarcusFenix said...

As an aside, I would have thought by now you'd have learned that these weakly supported arguments wouldn't work on me...but see, i can be wrong at times. :) Guess you're going to have to call in someone else to quote you, attribute the quote to me, and then deconstruct your ideals as if they were mine. I have to admit, that was quite entertaining, almost surreal.

purrtriarchy said...

All you have are semantic arguments

MarcusFenix said...

That's your only defense? I'm not arguing semantics at all, but you keep claiming it while engaging in it yourself. Let's do an easy demonstration.

One of these is semantics, and the other is an accurate, factual description term. Can you tell which is which?

"Zef's are mindless animal organisms""

"undeveloped human organisms"

See, one of those is a factual, actual, accurate description. The other one (the first one, in case there was some confusion) is a pejorative, dehumanizing item meant for a particular purpose.

I'm being specific about meaning, and using terms in their actual context and definition. You, sir, are not. It's just that simple.

purrtriarchy said...

Yes, you do age into a corpse. Gradually the organs stop working as the body breaks down - just the way it was designed to, by nature.

Yes, a fetus does not develop the capacity for sentience until 24-27 weeks. Abortions after that period are very rare, and are for medical emergency.

Yet here you are, trying to argue that zygotes and embryos are sentient creature because they *might* be sentient one day.

Until a zef can function as a person, it isn't one, and has no right to be treated as one. We don't allow animals to use our bodies, and a zef is a mere animal.

MarcusFenix said...

*facepalm*

Thanks, Dr. Oz, for pointing out how aging works. You're conflating aging with being a corpse, which is incorrect. It's not factual. It's not science. It's nothing more than your own say-so. You don't go from part corpse to all corpse as a result of aging.

Just as aging is part of life, death is as well...the very end of it. You are either dead, or not. You're a corpse, or you're not. The fact that this easy item gets away from you is silly. Let it go.

"Yes, a fetus does not develop the capacity for sentience until 24-27
weeks. Abortions after that period are very rare, and are for medical
emergency."

Which is fine. Sentience isn't, as mentioned above, a meter stick for some version of your "might makes right" idea. If that were the case, we'd kill every coma patient right now. We'd line up people who are blind and deaf as well, because they're not as sentient as you or me. I'm not sure what ideology you use where sentience is the measurnig tool for morality, but...clearly it needs some examination. If sentience were such a tool, there are all sorts of things we could simply wipe out of existence on a whim as a result, which isn't the case.

"Yet here you are, trying to argue that zygotes and embryos are sentient creature because they *might* be sentient one day."

See, excellent use on your part of semantics, even if i have to point it out to you. I'm arguing that a fetus is a living human organism, just as you are I, and is in the proper place. At its proper stage of development. As Wilcox often uses, and I agree, that they have the capability of being rational moral agents.

purrtriarchy said...

They really are mindless. Minds can be observed, and zefs don't have them. 50 years of neuroscience is not wrong.

And you can't dehumanize something that does not have anything in common with a person. A mere mindless clump of tissue that can't feel, suffer and is not even aware, because it is not a SENTIENT creature. And to take it even further, it is not possible dehumanize a zygote, which is merely DNA.

Not all humans are persons. And only persons can be dehumanized.

purrtriarchy said...

And you are conflating 'capacity to develop' with capacity for sentience. Just because some humans are persons does not automatically mean that all humans share those traits, or will *ever* share them. Tsk tsk.

MarcusFenix said...

Not at all. I'm specifically saying that the capability to develop them allows for the capacity to do so. If you can develop something, you have a capacity for it. It's not hard to really see where that line of thought goes, you just don't like the answer and want to make it something else.

"Just because some humans are persons does not automatically mean that
all humans share those traits, or will *ever* share them. Tsk tsk."

So, how many humans can you identify as non-persons? See where semantics gets you? Painted into a corner, having to answer a question like that, and all of your "tsk tsk"-ing in the world doesnt change the idea that you've got no real argument here. :)

MarcusFenix said...

See, now we're back to the core of your argument style. When all else fails, we go back to the arguments in your post here. I'll take that as concession of your previous points, since really..there's no defending them logically anyway.

"They really are mindless. Minds can be observed, and zefs don't have them. 50 years of neuroscience is not wrong."

Ahh, more semantics. Aren't you accusing me of this, yet here you are doing it. Awesome. A fetus is still in development...but there's a problem with your idea. We can, in fact, know when the brain develops in a fetus. The National Institute of Health has your preconceived notions beat here.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

Looks like....week 5? If there is a brain forming, then we're only left with your definition of "mindless"...which is subjective, irrelevant, and unimportant for the purpose of the discussion. Sorry.

"And you can't dehumanize something that does not have anything in common with a person."

I just want to be clear with what you're saying here. Are you saying that, as a whole, none of us went through this same period of growth, or that because it doesn't have a social security number and a favorite boy band that it's not human? I mean, i notice that you're trying to bob and weave between human and person, but it's not working. still waiting for the answer about who is a person but isn't human, and so on. Can't wait to see that answer.

You're still using sentience as the bar for morality. You never answered why, and really...i doubt you have a logical answer for it.

But yes, please tell me about all of these humans who are not persons. I'm dying (but not corpsifying!!) to hear that.

GEIxBattleRilfe said...

A lack of a right to life is not a automatic death sentence. Will you know go and kill off the dolphins in the zoo because they are non persons? If no, then there is no need to kill the human infant and this is something pro lifers like yourself forget again and again and again.

Ingrid Heimark said...

ave you ever heard of human-ethics? Of human rights, are you saying human rights that the whole world agrees upon are based on religion? The same rights that guarantee gays the right to their relation ships based on the fact that they are humans with equal rights? They are human-based. Noone can say THAT is religion

Ingrid Heimark said...

No it's not, it's destroying the weakest member of a family

Suba gunawardana said...

Using many words to criticize the argument WITHOUT providing a real rebuttal is a classic tactic of avoidance.

I addressed this before. If the concept "humans come first at whatever horrible cost to all else" does not come from religion, then it's rooted in selfishness.

While killing/exploiting non-humans "because we can", you pretend to have ethics for fetuses selectively. You wish to take away other people's right to kill for their own necessity & convenience, while retaining YOUR right to kill for your OWN necessity & convenience. It doesn't work that way either.

if it's fine to kill/exploit animals "because we can", the exact same logic can be applied to fetuses.

Not that there are no better reasons for abortion, but considering "because we can" is the real reason people use to justify killing non-humans weaker than us, why shouldn't it apply to humans weaker than us?

MarcusFenix said...

"Using many words to criticize the argument WITHOUT providing a real rebuttal is a classic tactic of avoidance."

Not criticism. I answered your question and you wanted to diverge it into something else. Was pretty straight forward, without avoiding it...kind of hard to use avoidance when I answered you like that.

"I addressed this before."

Not with me, but ok.

" If the concept "humans come first at whatever horrible cost to all
else" does not come from religion, then it's rooted in selfishness."

Perhaps. I don't disagree with that necessarily. I could very easily dovetail that very sentiment into abortion...98% of them, in fact, are done as a point of selfishness/greed on some rather large levels. That doesn't make the argument religious, since you had asked "if not from religion, then where?". It seems you already had the answer to your own question.

"While killing/exploiting non-humans "because we can", you pretend to have ethics for fetuses selectively."

Not only is that a bold blanket statement, but patently untrue. If I've been selective in my argument with you, please show me where and how.

"You wish to take away other people's right to kill for their own
necessity & convenience, while retaining YOUR right to kill for your
OWN necessity & convenience. It doesn't work that way either."

Not sure what you're getting at here...unless you're assuming (and we know what that does), that I have a motive (or a target, no less) for such motivations. You're going to have to flesh this part out, since there's nothing of substance here so far. Who/what am i killing for convenience? You're going to have to give some details, rather than make massive blanket statements that have no bearing.

"Not that there are no better reasons for abortion, but considering
"because we can" is the real reason people use to justify killing
non-humans weaker than us, why shouldn't it apply to humans weaker than
us?"

Since this links to the last paragraph, I just have to wonder...do you have some idea that "because I can" is a reason that I, personally, am doing something? Specifically, what "non-human" am I killing for this reason, and why?

As far as "why shouldn't it apply"...if, and that's a huge word, we're talking about killing animals....well, we're not really animals in that sense. Still not sure what you're driving at in total, so I don't want to go farther down the rabbit hole without you having a chance to explain your position in full.

Suba gunawardana said...

You have taken thousands of words to say nothing.
Here, I summarized my point.

-If it's fine to kill for your own necessity & convenience (animals, plants, humans or whatever; Any and all legalized killings that you condone and/or benefit from), you cannot oppose others exercising the same right.

-If killing is wrong, it doesn't become magically OK when you condone it.

MarcusFenix said...

I appreciate you making a summation of your point, though "thousands of words" is a bit overly dramatic, don't you think?

According to MS Word, after removing the parts of the post where i quoted you, my word count was 288. You're welcome to verify that...but it's not even close to "thousands and thousands!" Leave the pseudo-hysterics elsewhere please.

When I've read your summation, though..i find myself in something akin to the Twilight Zone. You receive answers directly, and then spout off something not connected while simultaneously saying I'm avoiding you. Very odd.

Moving on.

"-If it's fine to kill for your own necessity & convenience (animals,
plants, humans or whatever; Any and all legalized killings that you
condone and/or benefit from), you cannot oppose others exercising the
same right."

So, let me get this straight. You're saying that if I kill an animal, or plant, to eat (we need to eat, convenience notwithstanding), that if i think that eating food is ok, I can't tell someone else that abortion is a bad thing?

You do realize how absolutely far apart those two lines of thinking are, yes? They're not even in the same universe. I think it's just fine for someone to kill a pig and make bacon. A pig is a source of food for a human. Just because I don't own it and kill it myself, but rely on the convenience of getting it from a grocery store....changes nothing.

Your entire line of argument there is one really odd non-sequitur. Nothing more, nothing less.

Even if I were to grant you some leeway, and presume you're talking about me in the specific sense, and presume we're talking about supporting something like the death penalty, that's also an entirely separate discussion with entirely different moral and legal parameters. Things like that are not mutually exclusive or intrinsically tied together.

"If killing is wrong, it doesn't become magically OK when you condone it."

Except for the glaring and obvious fact that I haven't condoned anything, and most of what you've put here isn't an argument.

Try again.

Fusengammu said...

I disagree with the positions of the pro-life movement (both secular and religious), and this forum has its share of crazies on both sides, but I don't doubt the sincerity of most of the proponents of secular pro-life. I may be wrong about my pro-choice position. It could be that 100 years from now, my great-great grandchildren would be horrified at what I supported (I strongly doubt it, but...). Rainbow, you should at least hear them out before accusing others of dishonesty.

Suba gunawardana said...

Once again you are criticizing the argument an attempt to excuse your lack of valid rebuttal.

This is simple. Don't need so many words.

What is killing animals and plants (for food, clothing, entertainment, whatever)? Killing innocent individuals for our necessity & convenience.

What is abortion? Killing innocent individuals for our necessity & convenience.

If one is perfectly acceptable, why not the other?

DianaG2 said...

To the first group, I would say, "Ok, great."

(I would want to say, "Wait and see," but I'm not that rude. Nevertheless, if I see one of these moms ten or fifteen years later ---- assuming she has not committed suicide --- I believe they would have changed their minds about that so-called happiness and relief. It takes a decade or two to realize you were duped. And, it takes another few years to deal with the self-imposed trauma that a mom "chose.")

To the second group, I would say, "Well, there is a group called Silent No More Awareness, where moms carry signs that say, 'I regret my abortion,' and dads carry signs that say, 'I regret lost fatherhood.'

"So," --- (I would continue, speaking to these moms fraught with guilt) --- "I'm sure there are ALSO organizations where moms and dad's carry signs that say, "I regret that my son or daughter was ever born."

I would tell that mom to go find one of those organizations, because thee are so many other moms marching in "pro-choice" parades displaying signs that say, "I regret that my son or daughter was ever born."

MarcusFenix said...

"Once again you are criticizing the argument in an attempt to excuse your lack of valid rebuttal."

Then let me make it simple. You're not making a coherent argument that requires ones. When you do, I'll make one. Otherwise, there's no actual "valid rebuttal" to be made when what you're presenting is a non sequitur

Break down what you're saying....you're comparing the food chain and how it operates to abortion. They're nothing alike. There's no real comparison to be made here. The fact you keep trying to make it is laughable.

In fact, it's not hard to make the argument that if you're absolutely appalled by someone eating bacon, that another person killing their biological offspring in utero would be equally abhorrent. You go the exact opposite direction, which can be labeled hypocritical, at best.

When you can stop making ignorant comparisons about having to eat to survive versus abortion (pro tip....they're nothing alike and it's foolish to compare them)....then i'll actually have an argument to make.

DianaG2 said...

All pregnancies are unwanted at first.

DianaG2 said...

The truth is, we have no way of knowing who is or is not sentient by outside observation.


I don't know if you are sentient right now. Same for you. You have no way of knowing if I am sentient.


That is why we go by the pairs of chromosomes. (Except for Trisomy, true. They are also human.)


We need a verifiable standard. We have a verifiable standard.


Pro-aborts want to wish it were not so, because they want to be free to pretend otherwise.

Suba gunawardana said...

You purposefully avoided the point. You know very well that food is NOT the only reason animals and plants are killed.

(I even said so in my post).



Try again, if you can.

Suba gunawardana said...

I find it quite amusing the "abortion regretters" you speak of don't seem to exist in real life (except maybe in strictly religious communities where women are TOLD what to think). Otherwise they exist only on anti-abortion websites. & no way to verify if they ever had an abortion.



A mother supporting choice absolutely does not mean she regrets her own children.

purrtriarchy said...

Yes we do. Minds can be observed, and fetal brains have been studied in depth. I will take 50+ years of neuroscience over your uninformed opinion.



Fetuses register the same on an EEG as a braindead corpse. The only thing that's really active in a fetus, prior to sentience, is the brainstem. They lack the trillions of neurons and a *specific* thalamacortical hookup that gives rise to sentience. Until that develops, they are completely devoid of sentience.


And yes, we know that were are both sentient and sapient, because we are typing on computers, and THINKING. We are self-aware. Do a brainscan of us now, and you will detect the brainwaves associated with consciousness/thinking. Do a brainscan of a pre-viability fetus and those brainwaves do not exist.



Your ignorance is pretty astounding.

lady_black said...

Oh yeah, I remember you. You're the kook who thinks I was a dance instructor in another life. Look, nut... I don't teach dance, I have never taught dance, and don't even know HOW to dance in any way that any person would be crazy enough to pay me money to teach them. Hell, I've never even taken dancing lessons, so it would be very difficult for me to teach it. Go away and hump someone else's leg, mkay?

Jennifer Starr said...

What planet are you on? I'm actually familiar with that particular instructor--she still teaches and knows a friend of mine and they don't even look alike--they don't even live in the same state.

lady_black said...

I don't see "unwanted" as a weak angle, particularly when referring to one's right to make decisions about one's own body and health. If you have cancer all through your body (for example) and you don't want surgery, chemo or radiation, and wish instead to enter palliative care, no one has the right to force you. That's something we take for granted as adults living in a free society. The right to self-determination. You start with the premise that you DO have the right to force others to make life-or-death decisions in a manner that you agree with. You don't.

lady_black said...

Actually science has established that bacterium are indeed life. They are single-celled life, as any elementary biology student knows. Viruses are different, in that they aren't fully "life" because they lack features common to living organisms, yet they can be killed and they do multiply in a parasitic fashion. If viruses could not be killed, we wouldn't have vaccines.

lady_black said...

I sort of enjoy having one day where my children can honor me, and they do every day, but a call or card to thank me for my part in making them the people they are today is nice. All people enjoy being thanked for a job well-done.

lady_black said...

No they are not.

lady_black said...

No they are not the same. But they are both part of the human condition, and have been around for a long time. Abortion and contraception are not the same as infanticide or abandonment, either. If you make the first two impossible, you make the last two inevitable.

lady_black said...

This is MRA garbage. He has no say in a pregnancy because he isn't pregnant. Once there are feet on the ground, those feet have a right to support from BOTH biological (or adoptive) parents. The rights of a born child are not abrogated by decisions made by adults before the child is born.

lady_black said...

By the way. he might even have a point if women reproduced on their own. Neither men nor women reproduce on their own, and it's not an instantaneous process, like a bacterium that divides in two. A lot happens between conception and birth, and none of it happens in the body of a man. That's where his argument falls apart.

MarcusFenix said...

Then you're purposely not making an actual point. Sure, food isn't the only reason we kill anything. Of course, you didn't ask if i thought hunting for sport was wrong (which i do think is a bad thing, btw)...but there's a larger point.

You're. Not. Making. An. Actual. Argument.

Trying to compare the action of chopping up lettuce to make a salad and banking it against the issue of abortion isn't relevant, isn't a proper comparison at any level, isn't even in the same universe as being anything alike, and is a non sequitur. It's not an argument. Stop asking for a rebuttal to something that is not an argument, start making an argument that has something to do with the topic at hand, and you'll get an actual rebuttal.

You'll notice..you asked a question to start off with and got a direct answer. You waffled on even that.

Stop with the nonsense and make a point that is worth something, and we'll go from there.

MarcusFenix said...

It's like a broken record with you.

Sentience is not a bar that's used to gauge anything. I asked you specifically before to point out where and why you thought that was the case. You can keep talking about it all day, but it doesn't change the fact that sentience isn't used as a measuring stick for morality. Done and done.

If you want to talk about something meaningless, then perhaps we could start by you answering a question like that, rather than just jumping from point to point as they get smashed upon the proverbial rocks.

"And no, not all humans are persons. We value humanity for our minds, not our bodies."

That second bit isn't a universal statement, but that's a quibble on my part.

I'll ask for the 3rd time...how is a person not a human? You've yet to answer that. Notice a pattern...you are asked a question, but keep going on about other, non important items?

purrtriarchy said...

Not all humans are persons.

I will try to make it realllly simple for you.

Persons have minds. Animals do not. Zef's do not have minds. Neither do anencephalic babies and beating heart cadavers. Those without minds do not qualify as people and this is why we pull the plug and do not keep non sentient humans on any sort of life support. Unless we are delusional of course. Only persons have a right to life, and, judging by the above example if personhood is missing (no mind) there is no right to life. Zef's are mindless animal organisms, in fact, they are beneath that, since even my cat has more brainpower than a zygote.

MarcusFenix said...

Sorry, but using "FAIL" doesn't give you a win. It makes you look like a child.

The ability to develop a trait you innately possess is different from something you don't. In this case, you're comparing the ability for a developing fetus to be something different later, in a stage of growth, with their ability to play basketball later in life.

For whatever reason, you can't seem to process what naturally develops in it's own course, with skills and traits developed as a part of learning or other processes.

"And non-persons = mindless bodies."

Which makes them no less human, but "non-person" would be a bit offensive to the families of those folks, eh? A person is defined as an individual, not by sentience or some other elusive measuring bar you don't want to talk about. A person in a vegetative state is no less the individual, regardless of their cognitive ability. If use of your cognitive functions is a measure of humanity, most people you know would be less human than a member of MENSA. People with mental disabilities would be 3/5 of a person? Notice how your measuring tool there is weak and without merit.

Also, the uncomfortable item you lost last time we discussed this point is, again, that a "zef" (an abbbreviation designed to be dehumanizing in your context), when left alone and under normal circumstances, would be all the things you claim have value.....sentience, viability, and be a person....while your use of the aforementioned "non-persons" are not capable of returning to that state. The fact you lump a developing item with one damaged beyond repair and equate the two is incorrect. Notice earlier that I pointed out someone would be monstrous for pulling the plug on someone you knew was going to wake up?

You had no answer for that, and still dont.

MarcusFenix said...

Oh, it's you.

Thanks for telling me what my preferences and premises are...that's an excellent way to start out on your part.

"Unwanted" is a weak angle because it's fluid and subjective. It's not a definitive state of being, nor a constant or unchanging one.

The rest isn't worth much. Unless you equate pregnancy with cancer or other items, then you've got nothing. Sorry.

purrtriarchy said...

Zef's don't have minds, unlike the disabled.

And no, I will repeat, the capacity to develop a trait does not mean you already possess that trait. It only denotes potential, nothing more.

MarcusFenix said...

If you could please show where that is the case, you might have a point. Sorry if I don't accept your word at face value, given the decades of research and other reports that contradict you.

Specifically, you're confused with something being "alive", in the case of bacteria, as "life", which in context and use has a totally different meaning.

Good luck with showing your work on this one.

MarcusFenix said...

Addressed this earlier, no need to repeat.

I will put here that the reason we pull the plug, as it were, is because we have a reasonable expectation that the person (yes, the person) isn't going to get up again. They are not going to wake up, not going to function, and not going to do anything except lay there for as long as we have machines to keep them alive.

Notice the comparison...a permanent situation there versus a temporary one elsewhere. Again, if you knew one of those people was going to be awake, functional, and go on to live a full life after a few months, you'd be a monster for pulling the plug and would be universally condemned for doing so. the fact you can't reconcile those two points, much less argue other points effectively without having to skip to others right afterward, are really all we need to see.

I also notice you keep using zygote when it's a way to try and shift the discussion in a specific way, but use "zef" otherwise....subtle, but not useful.

MarcusFenix said...

But using your logic, the disabled are less human because they're less sentient, because they're less cognitive in their process, and in your continuing line of thinking where might makes right, then we'd be free to snap their neck at will because well, they're not worth as much as you or me.

If you looked at the NIH chart I sent you, at 11 weeks or so, a fetus can ball their hands up and uncurl them again..which is 10 times more than someone in a "mindless" coma can do. Wonder how that works?



You can repeat it all you like, but the fact that it develops and comes into being, while everything else you mention is the result of something being destroyed or damaged, speaks for itself. You keep talking about potential and dismissing it, as if what's going on right this second is all that matters. Very short sighted, and incorrect when banked against your comparisons.

Hope that's easy enough for you.

lady_black said...

Bacteria are life. They are single-celled flora and fauna. Because they are cells, they meet the description of life as being cell-based. They metabolize and excrete, and reproduce without the need to parasitically use other cells to do so. And you owe your own health to the fact that your digestive tract (gut) is full of "good" bacteria that break down your waste and keep harmful pathogens in check. Do you enjoy eating yogurt and cheese? They are produced by the life-processes of bacteria. Whether or not you believe me or not is irrelevant to me. I'm not your teacher or your Mommy and I do not think you're cute when you drool. DON'T take my word for it. You are obviously bright enough to use the internet. Go and look for yourself.

MarcusFenix said...

Sorry, but that's not showing your work.

"You are obviously bright enough to use the internet. Go and look for yourself."

Onus probandi. YOU are making the claim, so YOU have to back it up. I'm not going to go looking for the answers to your premises. If you want to prove your point, then you use the internet and YOU prove your point. Stop asking others to do the work for you.

So no, i don't take your word for it, unless you've got something to back it up.

Of course, you bypassed the nuanced meaning of "alive" versus "life", but don't let such petty details get in the way of being pedantic.

purrtriarchy said...

Those movements are reflexive actions and they do not signify any sort of consciousness.

I personally draw the line at the capacity for sentience, so your slippery slope fallacy regarding the disabled will not fly with me.

MarcusFenix said...

so, enough mind for reflexs (more than the aforementioned patient), but nothing else. For a few weeks. Oh no,it's not right this second, what ever will we do?

It's not a "slippery slope" when what we're discussing is the natural, biological development of a species. Trying to use a slippery slope fallacy for something that is a biological process that's been observed billions of times is laughable at best.

Also, your line drawing means nothing, since you seem to arbitrarily draw lines where they suit you, and only for your purposes. There's nothing logical, or even consistent, with it. So, you "personally drawing the line" means absolutely nothing.

lady_black said...

You made the initial assertion that bacteria are not life. You prove that you are correct. My biology education tells me otherwise. There is no distinction between life and being alive. When you never were alive, or you have ceased being alive, you are not "life" either.

MarcusFenix said...

I also provided 3 independent links showing my work. You're welcome to verify them if you like, but they're clearly there for you to read. The fact you either didn't bother, or didn't care, doesn't make a hill of beans. I made a claim and then provided evidence to that effect.

"There is no distinction between life and being alive."

Science disagrees with you...as those links show. Imagine that!

" When you never were alive, or you have ceased being alive, you are not "life" either.

If we're talking about inanimate objects, such as a rock, sure...they don't fit. The scientific definition of life is well established...but again, i showed my work. You, however, have not, and keep making bare assertions that anyone who went through a biology class would be correct to counter.

DianaG2 said...

Ok, it was obviously meant to be hyperbolic.

Sheesh!

lady_black said...

As is the case with many links your side offers, these links do not say what you think they say. These links all go to what I would consider reputable citations, but they make no mention of bacteria. Only viruses, which I clearly stated are NOT life. Viruses are organic compounds but they are not themselves alive. Viruses are not bacteria. Now prove your assertion or be known as a liar.

MarcusFenix said...

Then what do they say?

Where is the error? You do realize that calling me a liar, when you offer nothing to justify that, is pointless?

Do you typically level charges of bulverism and show up empty handed? I mean,it's not unheard of for you to be judgmental, whiny, and without merit in an argument, but you could do it with some panache sometimes.

Also, "your side" is a bit pejorative. I'm offering you fact. You're turning them down, because the person using the source (which you yourself claim to be fine with) disagrees with you.

Now, prove your assertions or scurry back into your hole. You do know how debates work, right?

lady_black said...

I already told you that all three links are about viruses. Why are you asking me what they say? YOU POSTED THEM. I accept your concession. Now begone, unless you have some proof to offer that bacteria are not life. We can grow them in petri dishes (nutrient base). Viruses can only be grown inside living cells. I don't know what PART of that is confusing to you, but you're beginning to bore me. Put up or shut up.

Jennifer Starr said...

How exactly is that hyperbole? Was there an actual point to be made with that statement?

MarcusFenix said...

Yes, you did. You also didn't take into account the nuances we spoke of earlier, and chose to ignore them. So, congratulations for cherry picking an argument that you state, up front, uses proper sources.

You've not offered me any proof. What part of SHOW YOUR WORK didn't sink in? What part of "provide a source" or even just doing anything other than bloviating for your own sake did you not understand? So yes, please...put up or shut up.

Yes, boredom...the first refuge and final resting place for the unimaginative and simple. I get bored with you after a while, but only because you simply can't be bothered to make an argument, and rely on a bare assertion the entire time as if your word is above reproach.

Post some facts, use some science, show me the work, or don't bother coming back.

MarcusFenix said...

Hell, lets say i play along with your childish display....bacteria are off the table. Do you care to respond to the rest of it, or are you so hung up on a single point that you can't be bothered without wiping the foam from your mouth first?

DianaG2 said...

"Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech."

The point was claiming "unwanted" is no reason to kill the little guy or gal before birth.

Oh, dear. It's difficult to pick who is more charming, gracious, intelligent and lovely?

Lady Black, or Jennifer Starr?

Tough call.

lady_black said...

The rest of WHAT? The only point I was disagreeing with you on was that bacteria are not life. I agree with you about viruses, they aren't life.

purrtriarchy said...

Reflexes like that originate from the lower brain. Its meaningless. Brainstem has ZERO to do with sentience.

And yes, you are using a slippery slope fallacy by talking about the disabled. They are conscious beings. Zef's are not.

And the line means everything, since we value humanity for our minds, not our bodies, which is why no one bothers keeping anencephalic babies on life support for 30 years. If bodies mattered just as much as minds, we would keep every individual with a dead cerebral cortex alive indefinitely. We do not.

purrtriarchy said...

Irrelevant.

Zef's have potential, nothing more. The point of the braindead patient is to point out that minds are associated with personhood, not bodies

lady_black said...

I did give you the science, you were not paying attention. "Life" is such a broad term that defining it becomes characterizing it by what we observe about living organisms. A living organism engages in metabolism ("eating" and "eliminating"), respiration, and reproduction. All living organism engage in these activities. A virus, which cannot reproduce outside a living cell, and do not metabolize or breathe (respiration) doesn't qualify as "life." A bacteria DOES qualify as life. You can verify this as easily as googling "bacteria."

MarcusFenix said...

You've completely missed the point, Lady.

I asked for you to show the evidence. Not to tell me about it. Pretty simple. I'm going to let you show your work.

lady_black said...

Why? You certainly didn't show yours.

MarcusFenix said...

The rest in context, about what constitutes life and doesnt, with respect to abortion. We can start there. :)

lady_black said...

I do not care to engage you about abortion. The ZEF is both alive and human. Alive and human are not qualifiers that entitle use of someone else's body to sustain that life.

MarcusFenix said...

Yet, don't happen elsewhere. Odd how that works out.

-You- are talking about a slippery slope. I'm talking about the progression of human development. Different items. But if there's a slope, i'm simply using your logic and reasoning to generate it.

A line may mean something, but you're drawing them at will and without any regards to the bigger picture, which is evident by your drawing of the "personal line". A personal line anywhere counts for exactly zero.

I don't disagree that people who are brain dead and never will get up go through a process..but you're using the same permanent example to then liken it to the temporary situation elsewhere is incorrect, which is the same point i've been making all along.

purrtriarchy said...

You mentioned the disabled, not me. Keep your shit straight. You appear to be struggling with this, considering your problems with Lady Black.

MarcusFenix said...

You don't care to engage, and that's fine...it's not an engagement in which you'd fair well. I applaud your restraint and self preservation.

You would, however, be slightly wrong about the last part. Since you're using it, the Violinist thought experiment has been revised and discussed, by the author herself. As i pointed out to dunce commander earlier, the original author even agreed with most points, as far as the stance pro-life has, but simply went on to say that she felt it was fine to abort anyway, regardless.

Past that...well, there's not much to discuss then.

Jennifer Starr said...

Actually, I asked the question very politely. And yes, I know what hyperbole is. Your statement was more confusing than hyperbolic, which is why I asked for clarification.

MarcusFenix said...

Hardly. I've been consistent with my argument. I never made the connotation that i didn't inject them, as others have and as you yourself have referenced. Why is that hard for you to keep straight? I simply took your premise, and followed it to the conclusion that was most logical, given the fact you're all over the map and keep having to change arguments back and forth when one no longer works.

Keep your shit straight, as it were, and this goes easier.

DianaG2 said...

Hey, like I said: You are just so charming, intelligent and gracious.

purrtriarchy said...

Slippery slope. Keep whining.

MarcusFenix said...

Yet, the braindead have zero potential. They're braindead, as it were...there's nothing left for potential. Nowhere left to go, nothing left to do, no growth to be had and no life to be lived.

Again, you keep conflating temporary and permanent, and trying to make a case. It's incorrect, and your repeated attempts to do so simply show you have no real rational argument to make otherwise.

lady_black said...

Look, you are undoubtedly alive and human. That doesn't mean you can hook yourself up to someone and demand that they breathe for you. Even if its your parent, and even if you'll die otherwise. Those are my thoughts on abortion. The bodies of women are not public property, and the gift of bodily donation is just that, a gift. Not an obligation.

MarcusFenix said...

but you said i was a liar and needed to go look my own stuff up! LOL.....

I showed my work, you then told me to go research your point, and i said "no". Simple as that.

You're done.

MarcusFenix said...

And right on time, the repeat of the Violinist experiment as the end all, be all of discussion points.

I would ask that you educate yourself about the thought experiment, and its counters, before making this argument again.

It's on the internet, I'm sure you can look it up and find it. :)

MarcusFenix said...

Broken record. Keep repeating.

lady_black said...

I'm calling you a liar because your "work" didn't prove your assertion insofar as I disagreed with it. Your "work" did a fine job of proving that what I said was true. But since you didn't bother reading your "work" I am under no obligation to regurgitate on command for you what your own references state. Hint: Your "work" says that bacteria are life, and viruses are not, proving my assertion. Now YOU'RE DONE.

lady_black said...

Yeah I'm familiar with that argument and it's fallacious. I am not required to provide either "ordinary" nor "extraordinary" bodily donation for sake of anyone else. Take a hike. My body belongs to me, exclusively and I will do with it as I like.

MarcusFenix said...

so, now tie it back to the topic in hand, since you've caught me red handed! Oh noes!

Or, are you not willing to engage?

All you do is regurgitate. I just figured it was a natural state for you. My bad.

Adam Peters said...

"A rapist gives up his rights while raping someone, i.e. while violating someone's body."

Yes, a rapist chooses to violate his victim's body. At what point in a pregnancy does a fetus choose to violate her or his mother?

MarcusFenix said...

Ok, so why is it fallacious, other than your injection of "ordinary" or "extraordinary"?

You're more than welcome to do what you want with -your- body. Of course, you'd already know the Violinist experiment was dealing with 2, or the charge that pro life levels is that there's 2 involved. You clearly are fine with making a judgment about yourself, and that's great.

But the fact you're more worried about the lives of viruses and bacteria rather than human beings is a bit telling.

So, feel free to hike wherever you like, while you go round and round with zero rational, moral, or philosophical reasoning beyond what equates to "because i can"....

Which, you'll find oddly enough, was smashed elsewhere in this thread. Do you typically subscribe to "might makes right?" Quite the stance to uphold.

purrtriarchy said...

Intent is immaterial. The point is that her body is being violated, period.

Suba gunawardana said...

You repeating something till you are blue in the face, doesn’t make it true.

I simplified my point several times. If you still cannot grasp it, the problem is yours, not mine. (Forced-birthers come in a range, but many of them actually can grasp a point. Their general problem is wth responding. YOU have a problem with both).

Anyway, I will try to simplify it even further: Fetuses are NOT the only innocent individuals in this world. The same forced-birthers who oppose abortion because “it kills the innocent” have no qualms on killing OTHER innocent individuals for their own necessity & convenience
when it suits them. If “killing the innocent” is wrong, it doesn’t magically become OK when forced-birthers do it.

“You'll notice..you asked a question to start off with and got a direct answer.”

Wrong again. My question was where the concept that “humans come first at the expense of everything else” originated. You went on & on about morality, which has nothing to do with my question. Unless morality means selfishness & subjugation of others. Does it? Now that was a direct question.

MarcusFenix said...

"You repeating something till you are blue in the face, doesn’t make it true."

Correct. why do you keep doing it then?

"I simplified my point several times. If you still cannot grasp it, the problem is yours, not mine."

You made a point multiple times. Did you notice that i read it, posted "this isn't a real argument and the two aren't alike", and then let it go? I'm guessing not.

"(Forced-birthers come in a range, but many of them actually can grasp a
point. Their general problem is wth responding. YOU have a problem with
both)."

Forced deathers (i can be pejorative too!) can't seem to grasp the concept that nursery school sing about, which is "one of these things is not like the other".

You're comparing the need to eat to something completely unrelated. It's not a complicated concept to see, but clearly for you it's an issue.

"Anyway, I will try to simplify it even further: Fetuses are NOT the only innocent individuals in this world."

No one said they weren't. You're making another non-point.

"The same forced-birthers who oppose abortion because “it kills the
innocent” have no qualms on killing OTHER innocent individuals for their
own necessity & convenience"

The same forced deathers who make this error-filled comparison simply are using a conjuction incorrectly. I have a problem with killing innocent humans, as well as killing for sport or other pointless and needless death. If your own view was consistent, you couldn't support one end of your argument (animals and the poor helpless plants!), and then turn around and say it's ok on the other end. Terribly inconsistent.

"If “killing the innocent” is wrong, it doesn’t magically become OK when forced-birthers do it."

So, if we can't kill a plant or an animal to eat, what do we do? Notice how easily your comparison is jacked up with such a simple concept? You're conflating two things that have *nothing* to do with the other, and calling it an argument. It's a non-argument...a non sequitur. It's also silly.

Wrong again. My question was where the concept that “humans come first
at the expense of everything else” originated. You went on & on
about morality, which has nothing to do with my question. "

Actually, from above..here's your statement:

"You dodged my question. Where does that concept come from if not from religion?"

I didn't dodge the question. I stated that morality (which a major item in the abortion debate, in case you were somehow oblivious for some reason, which is likely) was independent of religion. Your question was answered with a broad, applicable example. The morality a person has can be based on, or not at all be based on, religion. Do you believe atheists are somehow absolutely morally bankrupt? If so, then....well, they'll want to have a conversation with you.

If not...then now you've got an answer. you just don't like the answer. Not my problem.

So yes, the position being argued is a moral one, a legal one, a philisophical one...all kinds of facets. I answered with the moral part of it. Please keep up.

"Unless morality means selfishness & subjugation of others. Does it? Now that was a direct question."

To answer directly....in case it's not obvious that i'm doing that this time....morality is the process of determining what is right or wrong. If i were to tell you that forcibly subjugating someone else to be somewhere they don't want or have no control over is wrong, would you then agree that abortion would be morally wrong as a result, since that's the case? No. You'd argue a different point, bypassing the uncomfortable question involved.

You do know what morality is, and how it works (both personally and socially) right?

purrtriarchy said...

Potential is not actual.

MarcusFenix said...

And temporary isn't permanent. Aren't word games fun?!?!

purrtriarchy said...

You should know, your entire method of debating is by playing word games, it's all you ever do.


And no, a zef's state is not 'temporary' because you are *assuming* that they will gain sentience in every single case. Well, they won't. So, to treat something as if it is sentient when there is no guarantee that it will EVER become sentient is to treat the potential as the actual.And, even if they were to gain sentience in every single case, they still do not have the right to be treated as sentient beings before they are sentient, just as we don't treat people like corpses before they die, even though we know that everyone will die someday. We treat people and things for what they ARE, not for what they might be.

MarcusFenix said...

It's funny how defining things specifically and in direct context counts to you as "word games".

If so, you're poor at them.

"And no, a zef's state is not 'temporary' because you are *assuming* that they will gain sentience in every single case."

See, word games.

I'm simply using the basic biological and normal processes that an unborn child goes through, from conception to birth, to base a judgment on it. Either you don't get that, don't want to get that, or want to use exceptions and faulty comparisons as something legitimate. It's not, and you get upset and go all broken record on me when i don't let you get away with it.

"And, even if they were to gain sentience in every single case, they
still do not have the right to be treated as sentient beings before they
are sentient...."

Yet, we can logically and consistently show how that process ends up, after birth. Are you arguing that life starts basically at birth, or some other strange idea?

"So, to treat something as if it is sentient when there is no guarantee
that it will EVER become sentient is to treat the potential as the
actual."

so, we're back to using exceptions and bad generalizations to justify your point. Must be where your "personal life" was drawn, for this particular post.

" We treat people and things for what they ARE, not for what they might be."

Ohhh, more word games. Love it. Let's do this.

I look at a fetus as alive, and human, in it's proper state of development and in the proper location. As stated, I agree with Wilcox that the idea that humans are rational, moral agents....you get the idea, right?

So, to wit...if i see something as alive and human, but you don't...is that just your personal line getting in the way again, or do you agree that a fetus is alive and human? Since sentience is an arbitrary bar you already admitted earlier to just drawing for yourself, let's deal with more concrete items. Or, "word games", as you call them.

Easy line of thought...if I can show where a fetus is both alive and human, from the moment it starts....your next reply is going to be personhood. I'll reject it and your coloring book mentality, and you'll flip to something else, hence the word games.

You've never answered me about the moral underpinnings (remember, i've asked those before today), nor have you justified any real line as being anything other than arbitrary.

So please, stick to one sentence responses. It takes me less time to roll my eyes and respond with the same thing over and over again, since i'm having to deal with a broken record.

purrtriarchy said...

The concept of “capacity” is directly related to something that exists right now. An unborn human does not “right now” possess the capacity to be a person-class being.

MarcusFenix said...

See, I was right. Thanks for avoiding the larger points at the bottom, and skipping right to the broken record.

Capacity, in the sense of living things, develops. We can agree at least on that, right?

consider an easy example. A foundation for a house has the potential to be a house. I don't have the foreman on the site bulldoze it down because it's not a house right now.

MarcusFenix said...

We may be at different ends of a debate, but this is a refreshing post and i applaud you for putting it here.

In the interest of not arguing (isn't there enough of that already?), I would ask in an innocent fashion...if you believe there is an error in the pro-choice line of thinking, where would it be? Or do you believe that there is one? I ask, because the realization that your future family members may see it that way would indicate that there's at least a method to demonstrate that stance.

Curious. No judgments or snark from me on this one. Asking a question, and nothing more. :)

Rainbow Walker said...

I appreciate your civility. However, you seem to think this is my first rodeo. I have studied the so called
secular pro-life movement at length. It always goes back to churches. All these so called secular movements get church funds. I would love for the owners of this blog to post the domain ownership and their funding sources.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/03/12/an-atheist-can-be-pro-life-only-by-lying-about-the-science/

If a so called atheist must lie about science they aren’t atheists, they are wolves in sheep’s clothing; i.e. believers.

Rainbow Walker said...

How can one be right for bringing a point if the point is invalid?

Furthermore you don’t understand the law. The law doesn’t operate inside the realm of science [while it may listen to expert testimony it is not necessary for constitutional matters]. If it did most of these laws and rights
wouldn’t exist. Creating a legal fiction [a juridical person] does not mean
it’s “alive”. A corporation is seen as a juridical person, yet it has no pulse, but is driven by individuals. Having a pulse is not a prerequisite for rights.
Cognition however is.

And no, legally speaking it has not been settled, for these arguments have yet to be posed before a court.

Your science is also misdirected. That’s why I disagree with your links.

Viruses are being classified as living creatures.

[http://www.livescience.com/23209-giant-viruses-have-ancient-lifelike-properties.html]”A
new study suggests they should, showing that giant viruses have some of the
most ancient protein structures found in all organisms on the planet.”

If single celled organisms can be trained to navigate a maze, mimic the layout of man-made transportation
networks and choose the healthiest food from a diverse menu it proves these creatures don’t need the benefit of a brain or a central nervous system to
solve problems and store memory. Humans however cannot function without them.

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brainless-slime-molds/]

Bacteria are already considered alive. So are microbes and parasites. Although all these need a host to survive, by definition all life needs an environment to survive as well. Humans can be called a virus on the earth. We drain the host and give nothing in return.

So by your definition even your so called scientific argument fails.

So Physarum polycephalum [slime
mold] could be the first single celled organism to be declared a juridical
person, if your fetal personhood hypothesis flies. And there goes all medical treatment. Back to the middle ages.

MarcusFenix said...

As devil's advocate...would it not stand to reason, in these cases, that the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

If two groups, even with different agendas, support the same thing..then it makes sense that such support would come in different forms. It doesn't immediately tie one intrinsically to the other. Just my 2 cents.

purrtriarchy said...

Nothing but bafflegab from you.

purrtriarchy said...

SPL also doesn't seem to mind having their links posted on LAN and LIFESITE where they routinely bash atheism and blame atheists for abortion and every other conceivable crime.

MarcusFenix said...

while i disagree with your slippery slope idea at the end, i'm willing to concede to you that my knowledge on the subject was dated. LB doesn't get such concession, since she's basically a harpy. ;)

"Furthermore you don’t understand the law."

I'm not arguing the legality of the issue, so...claiming i don't understand a facet i'm not arguing isn't really valid on it's face.

"And no, legally speaking it has not been settled, for these arguments have yet to be posed before a court."

Hence why i didn't make that argument.

"Your science is also misdirected. That’s why I disagree with your links.

Viruses are being classified as living creatures."

Dated, yes. I'm willing to eat crow and say i was wrong, so thanks for pointing it out and not being a total Lady Black about it. However, if I pull a page from DC's playbook down there, potential doesn't = actual, and therefore you would be wrong, using his own logic. I'll let you work the details out with him. :)

"If single celled organisms can be trained to navigate a maze, mimic the layout of man-made transportation
networks
and choose the healthiest food from a diverse menu it proves these
creatures don’t need the benefit of a brain or a central nervous system
to
solve problems and store memory."

Would have to read the report. Is it really being taught, or is it navigating in a pattern due to outside stimuli and physical barriers? Again, would need to read the report, but it's a point to be made.

"Humans can be called a virus on the earth. We drain the host and give nothing in return."

We could, but then we'd be stretching the definition past the basic parameters of established thought. We can make the analogy, and in some cases I'd agree with you, but it doesn't make us a virus, or make life worth less as a result of comparison.

"So by your definition even your so called scientific argument fails."

Except when we stay with what actually is defined...there's that.

"So Physarum polycephalum [slime
mold] could be the first single celled organism to be declared a juridical
person, if your fetal personhood hypothesis flies. "

The easy error to point out is that a slime mold will never have a drivers license. Never go to school, or do other human things. It's not human, and using a bad comparison simply doesn't change that, no matter how sophisticated your rebuttal. slime will never be given personhood as long as there is at least one person with more than 3 brain cells sitting on a bench. It's just not a real thing.

Based on this, it's not a logical stretch to point to your last item as being irrational and not a point, and move on.

Thanks for the reply.

MarcusFenix said...

and nothing but one lines and out of hand dismissals from you...or broken record mentality.

Points for using "bafflegab", but nothing past that for not being able to actually place a rebuttal.

Suba gunawardana said...

Intent of the invader matters ONLY regarding determining their guild/innocence (if you wish to press charges). It has nothing to do with your right to protect your body.


Your right to protect your body does not diminish due to the invaders' innocence or lack of intent.


You may CHOOSE to accommodate an invader at the expense of your body, but you should never be obligated to do so. The choice is yours alone.

lady_black said...

You are very dim for someone who claims the ability to read my mind. I told you what is fallacious. My body belongs to ME and nothing "belongs there" without my consent. My vagina was "made" to receive a penis, but that doesn't mean it's ok for anyone to stick their penis there without my consent. I'm so not impressed by arguments that fetuses "belong" in the uterus. While it true that if someone wants a baby, the use of a uterus is (at least for now) essential to the process. But if the woman doesn't want it in her body it has no natural claim to be there. Especially since it's doing more in there than merely taking up space. Also known as the "tiny house" argument. The woman owns the house, full stop. It doesn't matter that it's only nine months. That isn't justified for nine days.

lady_black said...

Read your own fucking links, deadbeat. At least one of them agrees with me. My job is done... by YOU.

MarcusFenix said...

"You are very dim for someone who claims the ability to read my mind."

that street goes 2 ways, remember...scroll back up for reminders.


" I told you what is fallacious."

Wrong. You stated you thought it was fallacious...you didn't say what fallacy it was. There's a wiiiiide group of them to choose from. Can you name one or two of them? Are they logos or mythos? Formal or informal? And why?

See, that's more of "show your work"...so go for it.

"My body belongs to ME and nothing "belongs there" without my consent."

Which is fine, when we're talking about rape, etc....totally agree. Past that, there becomes a difference of opinion about who was culpable of putting what and where...but you said you didn't want to engage this, so......

" I'm so not impressed by arguments that fetuses "belong" in the uterus."

So where do they "belong"? And why use quotes? flesh that out.

"While it true that if someone wants a baby, the use of a uterus is (at least for now) essential to the process."

Actually, it's essential as an objective point. Later on, if it's not...then we both can agree that such advances would be awesome. It would reduce on-demand abortion AND remove your argument as being necessary. We both would win. :)

"But if the woman doesn't want it in her body it has no natural claim to be there."

Interesting choice of words...since it wasn't placed their by its own choice, or any other process other than the actions of others. Again, a divergent point you've said you don't want to engage.

" Also known as the "tiny house" argument."

I'm familiar with Jarvis-Thompson and her thought experiment here as well. Since i say show your work, I'd like to point out some rebuttals to her, starting with SPL's own Clinton Wilcox:

http://prolifephilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-critique-of-judith-jarvis-thomsons.html

http://prolifephilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-critique-of-judith-jarvis-thomsons_10.html

(I've linked page one of five, and five of five...you're welcome to read the reviews with the links on that page.

Here are a few more, just for extra credit...though whatever religious content there may be is neutral to me and i'm not interested in it specifically.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/puch0022/myblog/2012/11/a-defense-of-abortion-by-judith-jarvis-thomson.html

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/whosebody/Default11.aspx

http://nikosnature.tumblr.com/post/37553500595/nikos-response-to-judith-jarvis-thompsons-a-defense

I could link rebuttals until tomorrow morning when my fingers bleed. I'm sure you get the idea. Also, would ask you to (again) read Jarvis-Thompson herself. She agrees with more than some pro-abortion folks like to admit.

" It doesn't matter that it's only nine months. That isn't justified for nine days."

You've stated you didn't want to engage this, again, so...unless you do, I'll let this stand as just...nada for either of us.

MarcusFenix said...

"I am under no obligation to regurgitate on command for you what your own
references state. Hint: Your "work" says that bacteria are life, and
viruses are not, proving my assertion."

See, you regurgitate naturally.

I made a comment about this error to someone else who wasn't a complete harpy, so you're welcome to read that above.

At least one though? Heavens no, it's a full blown bum rush!

It's fun watching you be a harpy though...i find it amusing. thanks for the entertainment! :)

Suba gunawardana said...

You took another thousand words to say nothing. Of course your "rebuttal" would be to whine "it was less than a thousand". Basically all you do use an inordinate amount of words focusing on inane details & criticizing the argument, while refusing to address the argument itself.

Even your attempt at childish retaliation makes no sense, and even technically incorrect:

Forced-birthers are those who force others to give birth against their will, by taking the choice of abortion away. Who are forced deathers? No one is FORCING anyone else to have an abortion. Its their own choice.

“Actually, from above..here's your statement:"You dodged my question. Where does that concept come from if not from religion?" I didn't dodge the question”

Could you BE more wrong? Go back & look at that post again. Was it even addressed to you? Had I even asked you any question before that? What are you on?

Finally back to the point: Looks like you are totally unable to grasp that plants can feel pain, so let’s start with animals.

Meat/animal products are not essential for survival. So killing animals is not a NECESSITY. How would you feel if every time you sat down to eat or went to the store, some vegans were in your face yelling “stop killing the innocent!” That’s exactly what forced birthers are doing
to pregnant women.

MarcusFenix said...

"You took another thousand words to say nothing. Of course your "rebuttal" would be to whine "it was less than a thousand".

Do long responses confuse you or cause you distress? I pointed out that you were being overly dramatic saying "thousands and thousands"...which was true. It wasn't a rebuttal. It was a rejection of your non argument and overly dramatic responses.

Now that we've cleared that up, lets move on.

"Basically all you do use an inordinate amount of words focusing on inane
details & criticizing the argument, while refusing to address the
argument itself."

Did you miss the part where me saying that you comparing eating, or the food chain, to abortion was not an actual argument. Let me say it again.

It.
Is.
Not.
A.
Real.
Argument.

There you go.


"Who are forced deathers? No one is FORCING anyone else to have an abortion. Its their own choice."

so, pejorative for thee, but not for me? The fetus involved is forced into the procedure, or did that somehow get away from you in the discussion.

You do know this is a discussion about abortion rights and the like...not animal rights, not how immoral someone is for cutting up lettuce in a salad or w/e other idiotic analogy you want to try and draw from this. Get over it.

"Meat/animal products are not essential for survival. So killing animals is not a NECESSITY."

This is called "whataboutery". Are you trying to say that only vegan people are correct about abortion? See, stupid conclusion from a non argument!

"How would you feel if every time you sat down to eat or went to the
store, some vegans were in your face yelling “stop killing the
innocent!”

I'd feel they had a right to their free speech, whether I agree or not. Just because they have the right to say it doesn't make them automatically correct, or that they even have a real point. You're still mixing the two.

Humans arent cows, or chickens, or pigs...so get over that too, please.

" That’s exactly what forced birthers are doing
to pregnant women."

That's not what people are "doing", though i'm sure you're eager to post links about people in front of clinics and the like....which i already can tell you i disagree with the disruptive portions. More often than not, their presence there is peaceful, but...don't let facts get in the way.

Sorry, but if you can't stay on topic, and can't stop making this about how eating a steak is somehow as horrible as abortion....then we've got nothing left to discuss.

Bonus points for the fact that abortion, except in cases of extreme duress, is also not a (using your addressing style) NECESSITY.

So, since we can agree that unnecessary killing is worthless and shouldn't be done, when can i expect you to join the pro-choice camp, since you agree with the very basis of the argument...that the innocent should not be arbitrarily or unnecessarily destroyed?

Suba gunawardana said...

Totally missed the point again did you? No surprise there.

Let me make it REALLY simple for you.

My argument is NOT that animals/plants should have right to life, but fetuses should NOT. So far you have provided NO JUSTIFICATION why they should. "Innocent" is not good enough, since most other individuals legally killed are innocent too.

Long posts without substance (such as yours) just waste my time. I have real arguments to respond to elsewhere, & its annoying to have my time taken up reading tripe.

MarcusFenix said...

"Totally missed the point again did you? No surprise there."

Clearly, i didn't. You keep making the case that animals deserve some special protection, but members of your own species do not....

And you do so via a comparison about the food chain and food consumption, to incorrectly illustrate the point.

It's not an argument, with those things in place. It's not a misunderstanding. It's that you're making no real argument that bears weight.

Likewise, you've made no justification why plants should be shielded and guarded, but that members of your own species should not. I've asserted that as a member of the species, we should protect our developing young.

You, however, keep injecting this "innocent" angle...as in innocent animals and all. Are they not as innocent as our own species can be, especially given the conversation?

Clearly, you don't get the difference, and you're right..there's tripe and it's annoying.

Go back to believing that cows are better than people, or whatever drivel you believe.

I do note...you didn't answer my last statement there. If animals are innocent, and we can establish that a fetus is likewise innocent (which is an easy burden to reach)....then when will you join the pro life side, so as to be consistent with your own world view that we shouldn't kill anything innocent out of basic wants?

You say "no substance". Clearly, you wouldn't know substance if it was slathered on a steak and roasted.

But I would. And deliciously so.

So please, don't waste our time with your odd innocent animal arguments. It's completely contradictory on your end, and it's getting old.

Laters!

MarcusFenix said...

Kudos, however, for keeping the sock puppetry to a minimal. I honestly didn't recognize that you, and someone else here posting that actually sounds like they have a brain in their head, are the same person.

Keep up the excellent levels of uneven logical conclusions and pretending to be multiple posters at the same time!

Suba gunawardana said...

Just found out I am being accused of being the same person as Rainbow Walker, which I am not.

Adam Peters said...

Well, one could argue that in some ways a fetus is analogous to a kidnapping victim: she or he was forcibly placed into the womb through the choices of others and coerced by them into depending on her or his mother. So, if you've taken someone hostage, then it surely follows that at the very least you're responsible for her or his life.

AmyE said...

Why do you care if their funding comes from religious groups? It's not like they are using their site to disprove or attack religion. The true hypocritical action would be if they were putting down abortion and then receiving money from a source that was also connected to an abortion provider. Or if they were arguing against religion, but involved somehow with a religious group. The issue here is abortion and thus they want to link themselves with other allies whether they be religious or not. It's kind of like how the Abortion Network links different pro-choice sites together from Sistersong to Faithaloud.

Suba gunawardana said...

The one piece of substance in your whole post:
" I've asserted that as a member of the species, we should protect our developing young."

NOT when their future safety and well-being cannot be guaranteed, i.e. when their mother is unable/unwilling to care for them, and no responsible caring adult is available to care for every unwanted child. In this situation, unwanted fetuses are better off dead than being neglected/abused as unwanted children.

AmyE said...

Oops. I didn't scan down before I posted. Yeah, my feeling too. You might not agree with someone on the smaller issues, but if you agree on the larger...

purrtriarchy said...

And if pregnancy is remotely analagous to kidnapping, then sex is a crime.

Adam Peters said...

That's right :) Although it's really no more absurd than contending that you have a right to kill your son or daughter.

Suba gunawardana said...

To have equal rights:
-One should also have the ability to take responsibility for their actions. An ability gays have, fetuses and animals don't.

-One should NOT be violating someone else's rights, as in inhabiting their body without their consent.

Rainbow Walker said...

Because it means they are paying for the outcome. Disprove or attack? Indeed this is about abortion not ideas. Because the religious right knows anything that comes from their side is bought and misconstrued science they “plant” a decoy. In this case they try to say “see if an atheist likes it you have got to.” It doesn’t work that way. A real atheist is ration.

“It's kind of like how the
Abortion Network links different pro-choice sites together from Sistersong to
Faithaloud.”

It’s not. When one is a believer and comes to the understanding of rational they see that abortion is logical and backed by science and law. As the link I provided indicated so called secular atheists can only use the same methods
force birthers use: deception, false science and censorship.

A perfect example is Calvin
Freiburger. That nimrod banned me several ties from his little corner of
insanity. I think you saw that. I read up on him. Supposedly an atheist. An atheist would debate not sling false allegations and run off like a child. Funny the moment I mentioned doppleganger he swooped
in and banned me. I think he and PJ4 are one in the same. Same removal from
reality. Same disregard for boundaries and a control freak. He’s also a coward. But he’s feels big behind the screen. I won’t say anything online I wouldn’t say to your face.

Rainbow Walker said...

Quoted from a prince whose
followers beheaded him. Need I say more? See my post to AmyE.

Rainbow Walker said...

What you don’t realize is I see unbelievable cruelty to children. There are 400 million unwanted children in the world and ever birth adds to that. Your belief feeds that uncounted fold.

Yes there is one flaw in the
argument. That they give any concessions whatsoever to forced birthers. I don’t
believe in limits or restrictions and neither should the law. They have only argued privacy but we are guaranteed to be secure in our person and slavery has
been abolished. And yes it is slavery to force woman to give birth against her
will. Far more have died for this then you know. Someone will argue these points and all the restrictions will fall.

So how will that effect future family members if they don’t exist? You either haven’t seen much suffering or don’t care. I will be glad if they aren’t born. It will affect your future generations far more. How will you feel knowing they are suffering?

AmyE said...

In this case they try to say “see if an atheist likes it you have got to.” It doesn’t work that way. A real atheist is ration.
I'm not really sure I understand this. Are you saying that Secular Pro-life tries to prove their point by proving that atheism is right so therefore they are right?
It is the same as the abortioncarenetwork. I clicked on their links. Some prove abortion is okay due to science (secular) and some due to faith (religious.) I consider that to be the same as that which I see in the pro-life sphere.
Lastly, on your attack on Calvin. Atheism does not mean rationality. Atheism means a belief that there is no god. I've known logical atheists who have come to this conclusion through science and I've known atheists who have come to this conclusion because they can't believe a man exists in the sky so they're just accept religions as untrue. Just because Calvin is misguided does not mean he is not an atheist. Not all atheists are logical.

AmyE said...

Doesn't mean he wasn't right about that. Plus in this scenario I doubt secular pro-life will get their head cut off by a religious pro-life group. There is always the chance that a religious pro-life group will sabotage them, but this group would have to be very ignorant or not care as much about abortion as they claim to attack an ally. And the links I've seen posted on secular pro life lead to groups that are a mix of secular and religious. I haven't seen any of the "you're either with us (on everything) or against us" fundamental groups recommended here.

Rainbow Walker said...

He wasn’t right. And you didn’t
catch my meaning. What I was meaning is this little facade will be shown for what it is and it will all come down.

Of course they mix, because they are the same. The secular prolife movement was created as a front for religion.

Rainbow Walker said...

“Are you saying that Secular
Pro-life tries to prove their point by proving that atheism is right so therefore they are right?”

No. Once again it has nothing to do with belief in and of itself. Because anything that comes from the religious right is seen as anti-science [which is true] they needed to counter this. So religion fabricated the secular “movement” to justify forced birth.

As for Calvin, you missed the
point again. He follows the same ideation as believers, denial, delusion, fabrication and worse he shuts off everyone on his blog [I note he posts nowhere else on disqus] who doesn’t adhere to his ideation. That goes against the very principles of atheism. We are trying to get away from that, not
propagate it. Unless he is constructing this whole diorama to make atheists
APPEAR illogical.

Rainbow Walker said...

It seems you are proliferating a baseless accusation forged by a forced birth coward.

I have already called Calvin out for the coward he is and proved the lie. Oddly enough the minute I mentioned individuals on his little realm of insanity were doppelgangers he swooped in to ban me. Wonder why. And he would not reply. Guess I got too close.

Of course forced birthers are very gullible and stupid. No wonder you accepted it.

MarcusFenix said...

No one's safety and future status can be promised. That is no justification to eliminate them as a result.

Again, you're relying on "want" as a permanent and irrevocable status, rather than even count the possibility that such a thing can change.

Of course, you're too busy pretending to be like 4 people to actually argue this effectively, so...there's that.

MarcusFenix said...

Well, in the case of Rainbow there....she's too busy using 3 or 4 accounts to talk to herself here and elsewhere, so the entire lack of credibility kind of shines through.

I'll reply to sock puppet one more time though, and be done. :)

Suba gunawardana said...

What part of this don't you get? I already said I am not two people. Allegations are not proof.

Rainbow Walker said...

You are an idiot. I created two accounts because the coward Calvin banned me. He was the one spreading this lie. Of
course you took it, hook line and sinker. I proved I and Suba are not the same and Suba has no multiple accounts.

Just another diversion because you lost another debate.

Suba gunawardana said...

As I said, just like the FLDS with their dirty tactics.

MarcusFenix said...

I wasn't right...because you and your sock puppet accounts all got together and said I'm not? Got it!

Oddly, there are multiple facets of this you don't seem to grasp, which isn't surprising given you and the other voices which can't seem to stay on target with one account.

A religious person can make a secular argument, sans injecting God into the conversation, and be right. Facts are facts, and as you'd be fast to point out otherwise, you can't change facts/numbers/science on the whims of a deity.

Past this point, unless you want to argue that a person who is absolutely secular cannot be rational, reasonable, and possess morals or principles, then you're going to have no luck asserting that they can't make decisions about such items as abortion, the death penalty, poverty, and so on. By all but coming out and saying that those who arent religious at all cannot possess a moral compass which points in a direction other than yours, you discount the fact that people can, in fact, be rational and principled.

Consider, if you will, an atheist who considers the death penalty as something they wish to abolish. How did they get to that point? Was it because they're mindless, unprincipled sheep who just go with the flow? Or, did they come to an understanding about a topic based on what they have decided lies in the areas of right and wrong? At the center of the abortion debate is the question of its morality. The legality is something that can change, and has, and may yet again. Laws are not set in stone, yet you would have us believe they are (oh....sorry, that's your "constitutionally knowledgeable" persona...didn't mean to confuse the two!)

If you've done all of this extensive research, as you've claimed here with others, then I'd love to see it. Please, by all means, post your information. If you're correct, and basically all agnostics and atheists are just Xtian puppets dancing to the tune of their masters, then.....there are quite a few people who would LOVE to know that.

Or...the more Occam's Razor-like idea is that you can't seem to wrap your head around the idea of someone who isn't religious, and that on most other topics would vehemently disagree....suddenly turning on you and not supporting your position, because your bias about religion, people, animals, crayons, or whatever else you have going on over here will not allow.

Like the idea that buying a steak at the grocery store is nothing like elective medical abortion practices, the idea that someone who doesn't worship God can't come to the same conclusion on topics of note as those who do is simply beyond your ken.

Rainbow Walker said...

Note to PJ4/Calvin.



In the Little world of Calvin all the children are crying because their world is crashing down. Invaders came and
brought reality. [http://liveactionnews.org/did-emily-letts-fake-her-abortion-video/]

PJ4, Calvin since you blocked my last attempt on that thread to reply I think you will see this, if not maybe the other forced birthers will convey it.

I called him what he really is. If he wanted to debate he would reply. But he cannot and would not. Because he is a controlling coward with no argument.

My first comment wasn’t invective.

This is what I said: “The person[s] she [Tullia] was unsuccessfully arguing with wasn’t just purrtriarchy; it was I and many others. Strange she need to run and get help.
And you didn’t come. Only put forth unfounded diagnosis.

As a psychologist I need to tell you, you’re practicing without a license. She [purrtriarchy] is not suffering from any personality disorder. You are just a forced birther who cannot debate.”

Then you started yell at everyone Calvin, I mean PJ4. The minute I intimated you have or [maybe you are a doppelganger] you swooped in and banned me. Got too close. Why do you have such a need to lie and delude yourself?

I can give you help if you want it.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 672   Newer› Newest»