A Conception's Right To Life

[palerider]

Oh, I agree that "a human being begins to live at the moment of conception" but only in the sense that it is similar to the USSC's definition of the first trimester as "potentiality of human life".

You agree with the court based on what? They certainly aren't a scientific body and have no authority, or education by which they can claim to classify any living creature, much less human beings.

 

[palerider]

Dude... you have nothing.

Get your pathetic little sign and go stand out in the rain screaming at women going into the women's clinic... because that's as close to overturning Roe that you will ever see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-f8Rrki2hM

Nothing but the facts and the truth. Your inability to rationally rebutt any part of my argument or present credible evidence that refutes it is evidence of this.

And screaming at women from the sidewalk isn't my style. I prefer to help finance legal teams that will eventually overturn roe based on nothing more and nothing less than the perponderance of the evidence that abortion kills a living human being.

Keep on believing. Your dissapointment and outrage will be all the sweeter.

 

[Lagboltz]

Ah, my nemesis is back.

Do you deny that those who killed slaves were killing human beings whether the law recognized it or not?

Hey, I know what you are trying to do. Trick me. Let's save time and go through the dialog rather quickly. I say, "Yes, they were killing human beings." Your rejoinder will be something like, "Lagboltz, you intellectual fraud, the law allowed that killing. Do you support that law?" I would answer "No, laws are sometimes bad." Your reply might be something like, "Lagboltz, you blatant hypocrite, the USSC allows killing of human beings and you support that?" My reply is, "To some people Roe vs Wade is arguable, and that's what we are discussing here in this forum in a non-binding informal manner." You might reply something like, "Lagboltz, you wouldn't know your rectal sphincter muscle, from a hole in the ground nor law nor science."

I will continue my side of this dialog further below.

No part of your opinion is grounded in the law. Your opinion is based on a court decision. A decision that you clearly are completely unable to ratioally defend. You are no more than a parrot on a stick repeating "its legal" ad nauseum.

As I understood it, your opinion is based on how State law should be applied to Roe vs. Wade.

Both are killing for reasons that amount to no more than convenience. Do feel free to describe a difference.

If you want to consider gas chambers full of people agonizingly aware that they are being murdered because of their race and religion, and then equate that to a zygote that has no nervous system that can feel anything, then yes, you truly have lost sight of the human condition.

The fact that is alive and continues to live is evidence of having an interest in continuing to live.

A fetus has an "interest"? This is the second time you put the property of sentience on a fetus. Are you serious?

Of course I have made my case. My case depends upon 3 points.
1. Unborns at any stage of development are living human beings.
2. Human beings have a right to live.
3. The right to live takes precedence over any other right that may be invoked so long as one doesn't represent an imminent threat to another's life.

Great! This is the first time I'm aware of your of your arguments being so succinctly stated. If you stated that clearly before, I'm sorry that I missed it. It would have obviated a lot of acrimonious digressions.

If we make the following change:
2. "Sentient human beings have a right to live."
Then I agree with you. I am sure that most people would too, except where it gets into other moral issues like brain-dead life support, unprovoked war, collateral damage, execution etc, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

You quoted a few other textbook sources on conception, but they materially affect your first criterion only, so there is no need for further comment.

You have a reading comprehension problem? How, exactly, do you equate any of those statements to be the equivalent of "potentiality of human life" when they state explicitly that the unborn is both alive and a human being?

Well, I was thinking in terms of sentient human life. It appears that is what the USSC was thinking too for the first trimester. I don't know if biological scientists nor ethicists (try saying that fast three times) have any strong definition of sentience. It would probably involve some concept of self-awareness. That leaves an unaddressed opinion of when sentience begins. Some doctors define that very conservatively to when the fetus first starts having a central nervous system. I think I read it was around 4 weeks after conception. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

So in addition to being a poor debater, you are a bald faced liar as wel. Do feel free to provide a single quote from me that suggests that any part of my argument is religious in nature. I am sure that you wish my argument were religious as it would then be as invalid, and pointless as your own.
And yet, you can't point to a single quote from me that suggests my argument is religious. It is you who is presenting a faith based argument, not me. I won't hazzard a guess as to which faith your argument is based on, but it most certainly is faith based.

I apologize for suggesting you are religious or a fundamentalist. We have all been guilty of making false assumptions on each other now and then.

Faith is defined as a belief that is not based on proof. Your complete inability to offer up any sort of proof to substantiate the belief that you clearly hold so dear is blatant evidence of faith.

I believe that my redefinition of #2 in your case will clear up any difficulty in substantiating my position. It is still missing a clear definition of sentience. Your case #3, as I mentioned might find some people with disagreement on exceptions that I outlined, such as capital punishment, etc..

The idea of sentience also clearly illustrates why you and I disagree on the unconscionable nature of the holocaust compared to abortion.

 

[palerider]

Hey, I know what you are trying to do. Trick me. Let's save time and go through the dialog rather quickly. I say, "Yes, they were killing human beings." Your rejoinder will be something like, "Lagboltz, you intellectual fraud, the law allowed that killing. Do you support that law?" I would answer "No, laws are sometimes bad." Your reply might be something like, "Lagboltz, you blatant hypocrite, the USSC allows killing of human beings and you support that?" My reply is, "To some people Roe vs Wade is arguable, and that's what we are discussing here in this forum in a non-binding informal manner." You might reply something like, "Lagboltz, you wouldn't know your rectal sphincter muscle, from a hole in the ground nor law nor science."

No trick. You seem to be making the claim that because the court said that unborns were not human beings, that they were not human beings. The court also said that blacks weren't human beings. In neither case was the court qualified to determine what is or is not a human being. How could it be ok in one instance but not ok in another.

As I understood it, your opinion is based on how State law should be applied to Roe vs. Wade.

Then you don't understand. Did I not go to great lengths to explain the 14th amendment of the Constitution to you? No state has the right to deny rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

If you want to consider gas chambers full of people agonizingly aware that they are being murdered because of their race and religion, and then equate that to a zygote that has no nervous system that can feel anything, then yes, you truly have lost sight of the human condition.

I am still waiting for you to describe a difference beyond level of maturity.

A fetus has an "interest"? This is the second time you put the property of sentience on a fetus. Are you serious?

interest - n - the state of being affected by something in respect to advantage or detriment.

Yes, unborns have interest. One doesn't need to be aware of having an interest in order to have an interest.

Think about your education for a minute? Do you feel cheated? You should. Do you really not know what sentience means? Or are you simply trying to unilatarally redefine the word in an attempt to make a valid point? Sentience is defined as a capacity for sensation or feeling. Do I need to explain the difference between having a capacity to and having an ability to? We are sentient creatures by our very nature from the time we are concieved.

There is a reason that sentience is not mentioned in the roe decision. The justices knew perfectly well what the word means and its use would have opened a can of worms that would have gotten in the way of their agenda. The only way around their dilemma was to simply state that unborns were not human beings. To admit that they were human beings would have been to admit that they were sentient creatures.

Sentience is just one more word that the pro choice side of the argument has attempted to redefine over the years in an attempt to defend what was, and remains an indefensible position.

Great! This is the first time I'm aware of your of your arguments being so succinctly stated. If you stated that clearly before, I'm sorry that I missed it. It would have obviated a lot of acrimonious digressions.

If we make the following change:
2. "Sentient human beings have a right to live."
Then I agree with you. I am sure that most people would too, except where it gets into other moral issues like brain-dead life support, unprovoked war, collateral damage, execution etc, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

There is no need to make a change since we come into being as sentient creatures. Sentience isn't something we become, or grow into. Sentience, like personhood is simply what you are, not the degree to which you manifest your potential.

Well, I was thinking in terms of sentient human life.

It is clear that you don't know what sentient human life is. By definition, we come into being as sentient creatures.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Then you don't understand. Did I not go to great lengths to explain the 14th amendment of the Constitution to you? No state has the right to deny rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Maybe they don't have the right, but they do it anyway. Why should this issue be any different. People have voted to deny equal rights to a portion of the adult population, why shouldn't the people be able to vote away the rights of fetuses?

Nice to see you posting again, Pale, you should get out more, work on that tan.

 

[Lagboltz]

I am still waiting for you to describe a difference beyond level of maturity.

As I said, Jews dying in gas chambers feel the agony unlike a fetus without a nervous system. So yes, my argument is based on a great difference in the level of maturity. Why do you have a problem with that?

Think about your education for a minute? Do you feel cheated? You should. Do you really not know what sentience means? Or are you simply trying to unilatarally redefine the word in an attempt to make a valid point? Sentience is defined as a capacity for sensation or feeling. Do I need to explain the difference between having a capacity to and having an ability to? We are sentient creatures by our very nature from the time we are concieved.

Now, now, Mr. Palerider, mind your manners. Our discussion at this point looks like it boils down to the definition of sentience. The definition of sentience that I find in the books that I read refer to the current capability of the being not the potential capability. For example, the first two adjectives in the definition below cover the usage I'm most familiar with.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sentient
Adj. 1. sentient - endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousness; "the living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage"- T.E.Lawrence

Adj. 2. sentient - consciously perceiving; "sentient of the intolerable load"; "a boy so sentient of his surroundings"- W.A.White

You should have been able to see that in context. However, giving you the benefit of doubt, perhaps your favorite dictionary doesn't have that definition. It should, because that has very common usage.
This is also at the same site and is consistent with the meaning I'm using.

1. Having sense perception; conscious
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

Your definition below was not at that site, However I saw your definition somewhere but I forgot the link:

sentient [sen-tee-ent, sen-shent]
Adjective: capable of perception and feeling [Latin sentiens feeling]

I am not using that definition. Contrast the definition that I use to the antonym given below:

insensate, insentient - devoid of feeling and consciousness

I would use that definition of insentient to describe the nature of a sufficiently immature fetus. Please bear in mind that I am not redefining words to suit my purpose, I am merely disambiguating the words that I use when there are multiple dictionary definitions. However, if you have any problems with the above, please give me the benefit of doubt and try to look at other definitions that would be appropriate to the context of what I am discussing before you get so huffy.

I think that should clear up my meaning when I used the phrase, "Sentient human beings". Furthermore, it should clear up any difficulty in substantiating my position on abortion. However, if you still have problems, I can reword the phrase to enhance the clarity, but I trust that it won't be needed.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Hey pro lifer, What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Pro lifer 'They are the same thing'.

 

[palerider]

Maybe they don't have the right, but they do it anyway. Why should this issue be any different.

40 million dead and counting seems to make this issue quite a bit different.

People have voted to deny equal rights to a portion of the adult population, why shouldn't the people be able to vote away the rights of fetuses?

Your argument is a logical fallacy. Appeal to popularity.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Why did the egg cross the road?

 

[palerider]

As I said, Jews dying in gas chambers feel the agony unlike a fetus without a nervous system. So yes, my argument is based on a great difference in the level of maturity. Why do you have a problem with that?

So if hitler had anesthetised them his actions would have been acceptable to you? You really should work on following your "rational" to its logical conclusion.

Now, now, Mr. Palerider, mind your manners. Our discussion at this point looks like it boils down to the definition of sentience. The definition of sentience that I find in the books that I read refer to the current capability of the being not the potential capability. For example, the first two adjectives in the definition below cover the usage I'm most familiar with.

I suppose that would be true if you could prove that sentience is what makes a human being. Your argument seems to suggest that those who lack the ability to feel, (ie, those who are severly mentally retarded or those with a condition known as CIPA, some lepers, and everyone who is under a general anesthetic are not sentient creatures and therefore no longer human beings. Is that your argument? You really should work on following your "rational' to its logical conclusions.

You should have been able to see that in context. However, giving you the benefit of doubt, perhaps your favorite dictionary doesn't have that definition. It should, because that has very common usage.
This is also at the same site and is consistent with the meaning I'm using.

Funny you should mention context. Did you not suggest that the supreme court was thinking in terms of sentience even though the word doesn't appear a single time in the decision? Cearly, sentience was not an issue to them for the exact reasons I described.

CIPAI think that should clear up my meaning when I used the phrase, "Sentient human beings". Furthermore, it should clear up any difficulty in substantiating my position on abortion. However, if you still have problems, I can reword the phrase to enhance the clarity, but I trust that it won't be needed.[/QUOTE]

There is, and never has been any problem in substantiating your position on abortion. You are pro abortion. The problem you are having is rationally defending your position and this sentience tangent hasn't helped you a bit as you have not proved that sentience is what makes a human being a human being. If it is, then you are saying that those who are afflicted with certain disorders and the severely mentally retarded are not, in fact, human beings.

Do you believe that the severely mentally retarded have no right to live and should not be protected under the constitution?

 

[palerider]

Why did the egg cross the road?

I see that you still haven't got that whole fertilization thing worked out. It isn't something to be proud of and certainly being that ignorant isn't an appropriate topic for attempted humor.

Again, why do you feel the need for me to humiliate you in public? For that matter, why do you believe it is humorous for you to exhibit your ignorance in public, especially when it really isn't that tough to actually learn something.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You don't humiliate me, only yourself.

All I am doing is exposing the fraud of your argument.

You and your like have to resort to emotive language in a vain effort to prop up a broken argument.

Nobody in their right mind calls a fertilsed hen's egg a chick, a chicken, a bird or anything else other than an egg. And nobody extends the same rights to an egg that they extend to the chicken

For example, some kind people protest against the cramped conditions that battery chickens are kept in.

But nobody campaigns against the proximity in which eggs are kept in in their boxes.

And some ferilised eggs do get through one way or another and it does not change the argument one iota.

Now off you go.

Humiliate me.

 

[palerider]

You don't humiliate me, only yourself.

You delude yourself.

All I am doing is exposing the fraud of your argument.

You have failed. But do point to any specific fraud in my argument if you are able.

You and your like have to resort to emotive language in a vain effort to prop up a broken argument.

I use medical texts and the law. Which part of either is emotive?

Nobody in their right mind calls a fertilsed hen's egg a chick, a chicken, a bird or anything else other than an egg. And nobody extends the same rights to an egg that they extend to the chicken

Nobody but those educated in biology. If you read scientific texts, it is always called a chick.

Here is an introduction to embryology that explains what I am saying perfectly. It is titled, Development of the Chick. Note, not the development of the egg since the chick exists from the time fertilization is complete.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPR10,M1

But nobody campaigns against the proximity in which eggs are kept in in their boxes.

Does this really pass for logic in your mind? No one complains about the cramped quarters snails live in either.

Humiliate me.

No problem. You make it so easy.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

A fertilsed egg is always called a chick????

I think that just about sums up your 'scientific' approach to this subject.

That really made me laugh. I have never seen such a desperate argument in my life

Thanks Paleintoinsignificance.

And remember, you can't make an omelette with breaking chicks

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

This thread should be titled 'a misconception's right to be debated'