A Conception's Right To Life

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't know if you purposely try to mislead or if you are seriously confused, Mare.

But I don't have the time or inclination to continue correcting your errors or responding to your ad hominem attacks.

The personhood of the newly conceived has been presented without refutation.

The right to life which is acknowledged to exist for all people, as stated in famous separation-of-church-and-state secular government documents, some of which I've already quoted, is a given, not a matter of rational conjecture, especially in this thread.

If you have a problem with the reality of the right to life, then deal with it in the Realities of Rights thread.

The matter here has been settled.

I won't waste any more time on your oppositional defiant disordered silliness.

I question the quote you attribute to me at the beginning of your post. Would please supply a source for that? Or is it a mish-mash of words taken out of context?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You raise another interesting point Mare. There are so many variables and variations of interpretation, you bring up a soul for instance... that it really is a personal judgment call.

As such it's "the woman in the actual situation and with the burden" who has been seen as having the right to be able to exercise her choice in this very personal matter.

And as a sidebar looking at some of these replies... seems Chip is getting a little chippy. Even though he'd be the first to insult he's now threatening to "report" people for not being on subject in a way that suits him?

Like many people Chip wants to make it all black and white, reducing the decisions of about 3 billion women down to one word: convenience. He's the same way about gay and trans people. The world is not simple, just some of the people.

As a person with an interest in spirituality I think that the decisions we make are extemely important and forcing others to obey our commands takes away not only their rights but damages our karma as well. Walking the middle path is very difficult, a balancing act at night on a wire we cannot see.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Originally Posted by Mare Tranquillity
[Many things in her previous post taken out of context, apparently purposely misconstrued, obviously in factual error, and in violation of common sense, much of it simply fabricated twists designed to support an ad hominem.]

So, Chippo, this WAS a fake quote engineered by you as a final cheapshot? A fitting end to your rain of error. (Yes, I meant "rain", not "reign".)

 

[top gun]

Like many people Chip wants to make it all black and white, reducing the decisions of about 3 billion women down to one word: convenience. He's the same way about gay and trans people. The world is not simple, just some of the people.

As a person with an interest in spirituality I think that the decisions we make are extemely important and forcing others to obey our commands takes away not only their rights but damages our karma as well. Walking the middle path is very difficult, a balancing act at night on a wire we cannot see.

And that is a easy trait to fall into... seeing everything as black & white from ones own & only perspective.

It's funny but as I grow older I see over & over again two distinctly different types of people.

One type becomes somewhat more jaded, suspicious and less tolerant of others different than themselves.

The other tend to go more the live & let live route when it comes to their view of others different than themselves.

We all pick what we want to be...

 

[palerider]

Does anyone here really think that our arguing changes anyone's mind? Do you think all the sound and fury here has caused or prevented one abortion?

Not minds like yours, but certainly minds get changed. There are people who recognize when their positions are in conflict with the facts and alter their positions to reflect the facts. I suppose that I have changed about a dozen or so minds since I started arguing this subject. Flexible and adaptable minds, unfortunately, aren't the norm.

Chip has accused me of misandry which isn't correct either. I dislike men who try to own women, who try to control them, and who abuse them. A lot of men aren't like Chip or Pale, and I have no problem with those men. I have a lot scorn and distaste for the men who feel the need to beat up "f*cking queers" or promote hate against them while ignoring what science has discovered about them.

Making it illegal for women to kill their children is no more owning them than making it illegal for a husband to beat his wife is owning him. Emotional handwringing doesn't constitute actual argument mare.

here is a link[/URL] to a discussion in which a case is discussed where the courts forced a hospital to provide life support to a child born with anencephaly who had no possible hope for recovery. The discussion begins on page 13. As to the rest who are justifiably terminated, see the 14th amendment and that little tidbit about due process.

I don't know about you, but this looks like it's on topic:

No. I am afraid that isn't on topic. It is an attempted diversion by you to sidestep the science that proves you wrong and enter a realm where neither argument holds any weight. Injecting souls into this argument is a logical fallacy known as a red herring and argument composed of logical fallacy is never on topic.

Pale has been proving God's existence on another thread for several hundred posts.

I did a search and I can't even find a post where I mention God, much less an entire conversation where I try to prove his existence. Do feel free to provide a link to any such conversation I have had.

 

[palerider]

I dropped that word long ago. I have more recently used non-sentience, but not even that word in my previous post.

How clever of you. Now you are left unable to prove the same thing that you coudn't prove before.

There is no logical fallacy. In defining H, logic isn't even used. I am making a formal description of the properties of a "definition". Dictionaries are replete with multiple definitions of words, for example Black gives two definitions of "person". So how do you consider a definition of a word with no surrounding context? You must display the full set of sub-definitions. That is what a dictionary does. In more formal terms, H={h1,h2,h3,...}. That is the notation used in expressing a set of things. And the set of definitions is the starting basis of any logical argument critically involving a word in a language.

Of course there is a logical fallacy. You are begging the question, making an assumption that you can not prove. The legal definition of person is "a human being" there are no qualifications listed. "A human being." simple as that.

I presume you think that what makes a dead zygote human is the encapsulated DNA since dead means not alive. If you say a dead zygote is a "human being", then in essence you are also saying that the definition of person according to Black leads to the conclusion that the constitution protects dead humans beings. You have entered a quagmire of logical inconsistency.

The cemetaries are full of dead human beings. What exactly is your point? Since frozen zygotes can be reanimated while those in cemetaries an not, perhaps the law should examine that conundrum.

I am not making that claim. I am saying that the references of the scientists in your first point are the ones making that claim. That is the only definition that makes sense concerning the "humanness" of zygotes, especially dead zygotes. You have made the same claim when you insist that DNA is the primary characteristic of a human. (I have stated that DNA is a chemical template, not a characteristic of humanness.)

And yet, you can provide no credible scientific evidence to support that claim. Here we still stand. I have made no claim that I have failed to support with credible materials, and you have not made a claim that you can support. Your lips are moving but nothing is coming out.

I can't see how you think that I am dogmatic when I am codifying or clarifying the concept of multiplicities in "definitions". You seem to be losing sight of the problems of multiple meanings and disambiguation of meanings in contexts, and you are being dogmatic simply stating that the two meanings are the same without proof or technical justification.

dogma - n - a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative.

You offer up your arguments without support and claim that they mean something in the face of credible science and the law that says you are wrong. You simply assume that your arguments carry some authority even though we both know that you can support none of them with credible materials. You make a claim that somehow I am "switching" definitions and can offer no evidence of that either. Your whole position is supported by nothing more than your faith.

Finally, in this particular post, I am not making any "dogmatic" independent proofs.

You are dogmatic specifically because you believe in that which you can not prove. You simply assume that your arguments are authoratative.

The focus should no longer be on (non)sentience, which I think is crucially important but you don't.

Again, you think a thing, and argue the thing but can not prove the thing. I don't expect you to buy a single unsupported argument that I make and you expect me to buy your whole argument unsupported.

Please don't think I am trying to make an alternate argument that I think the government should support. In this post, I am simply challenging your claim that you proved anything. In fact, I now think that your argument is further regressing into a logical quagmire.

I have made no claim that I have not proved. Do feel free to point out any claim that I have made that isn't supported. While you are at it, how about pointing out any claim that you have made that is supported.

 

[palerider]

Like many people Chip wants to make it all black and white, reducing the decisions of about 3 billion women down to one word: convenience.

Here is the definition of convenience mare:

convenience - n - the quality of being convenient;
2. anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort, etc.
3. a convenient situation or time.
4. advantage or accommodation.

Here is the challenge. Name a situation any one of those 3 billion women might find themselves in which their child is not an imminent threat to their lives that does not fit nicely within the definiton of convenience.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Here is the definition of convenience mare:

convenience - n - the quality of being convenient;
2. anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort, etc.
3. a convenient situation or time.
4. advantage or accommodation.

Here is the challenge. Name a situation any one of those 3 billion women might find themselves in which their child is not an imminent threat to their lives that does not fit nicely within the definiton of convenience.

Oh please, Pale, it doesn't matter what the situation is you will claim it isn't important. Why bother with your misogynist catholicism?

Here's an example I know of personally:
A married woman with two children whose husband decends into paranoid schizophrenia leaving her suddenly as a single mother with no job, two children to raise and no money. Her family has money but they didn't want her to marry so they won't help her. When she discovered that she was pregnant she had an abortion because it wouldn't have been "convenient" to try to be pregnant or raising three children with nothing instead of just two. She buster her ass properly raising the two children she had, and she sent both of them through college and grad school nearly by herself. Both turned out well and are productive members of society. Nearly 30 years later, she still grieves for the child she couldn't save, but also still believes that she did the right thing at the time. What she really needs now is for an a$$hole like you to heap sh1t on her when you've never been in her shoes for a single instant. It's always easy to tell other people what they should do, isn't it?

In a country with no health care for poor people, limited unemployment benefits, no daycare for poor working people, limited welfare given grudgingly with much approbrium by self-righteous people like you. Forcing poor women to bear babies that they cannot or do not wish to care for is cruel and stupid in a culture that does not value babies after birth. Your selective indignation is absolutely classic, a clump of cells that may develop into a human being is far more important than the children already living in squalor and want--but you don't worry about them, do you? You certainly don't post anything about caring for them--you and flogging, Nazi Rat-Pope decrying birth control in world with more than 6 billion people and demanding that OTHER people bear and birth babies that have no place to go. Abortions are bad, your solution is worse.

 

[palerider]

Oh please, Pale, it doesn't matter what the situation is you will claim it isn't important. Why bother with your misogynist catholicism?

Here's an example I know of personally:
A married woman with two children whose husband decends into paranoid schizophrenia leaving her suddenly as a single mother with no job, two children to raise and no money. Her family has money but they didn't want her to marry so they won't help her. When she discovered that she was pregnant she had an abortion because it wouldn't have been "convenient" to try to be pregnant or raising three children with nothing instead of just two. She buster her ass properly raising the two children she had, and she sent both of them through college and grad school nearly by herself. Both turned out well and are productive members of society. Nearly 30 years later, she still grieves for the child she couldn't save, but also still believes that she did the right thing at the time. What she really needs now is for an a$$hole like you to heap sh1t on her when you've never been in her shoes for a single instant. It's always easy to tell other people what they should do, isn't it?

In a country with no health care for poor people, limited unemployment benefits, no daycare for poor working people, limited welfare given grudgingly with much approbrium by self-righteous people like you. Forcing poor women to bear babies that they cannot or do not wish to care for is cruel and stupid in a culture that does not value babies after birth. Your selective indignation is absolutely classic, a clump of cells that may develop into a human being is far more important than the children already living in squalor and want--but you don't worry about them, do you? You certainly don't post anything about caring for them--you and flogging, Nazi Rat-Pope decrying birth control in world with more than 6 billion people and demanding that OTHER people bear and birth babies that have no place to go. Abortions are bad, your solution is worse.

So you admit that unless her life is in danger, a woman who aborts her child is doing it for no better reason than convenience. That is what I argued from the first place. Why not just admit it rather than prove that you can't come up with a situation that doesn't amount to convenience?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So you admit that unless her life is in danger, a woman who aborts her child is doing it for no better reason than convenience. That is what I argued from the first place. Why not just admit it rather than prove that you can't come up with a situation that doesn't amount to convenience?

I assumed that you would ignore the substance of my post, and you did. I disagree with you, I despise your self-righteous bigotry and misogyny, your compassionless religion, and the selective indignation you use to hurt others when you could be using that energy to help. You disgust me, I suspect you disgust yourself too at a deep level where you don't want to look, so it's easier to express your self-disgust by lashing out at others.

"Pale" is apt, a bloodless, cold, vapid, creature living in the darkness under a bridge or rock striking out venomously at those who pass by. Shoot, Pale, you missed your window of opportunity, you should have been born in the 14th century and then you could have warmed yourself by the fires of women that you were burning at the stake.

 

[palerider]

I assumed that you would ignore the substance of my post, and you did. I disagree with you, I despise your self-righteous bigotry and misogyny, your compassionless religion, and the selective indignation you use to hurt others when you could be using that energy to help. You disgust me, I suspect you disgust yourself too at a deep level where you don't want to look, so it's easier to express your self-disgust by lashing out at others.

Methinks you are projecting again. Don't believe me? Take a look at what you wrote and tell me who is lashing out.

"Pale" is apt, a bloodless, cold, vapid, creature living in the darkness under a bridge or rock striking out venomously at those who pass by. Shoot, Pale, you missed your window of opportunity, you should have been born in the 14th century and then you could have warmed yourself by the fires of women that you were burning at the stake.

Again, you result to impotent, pointless attacks on me rather than offer up a rational defense of your postion. You claim that I am cold, bloodless, and vapid while trying to justify the fact that you favor allowing women to kill their children for any or no reason. In your attempt to describe me, you are describing yourself. I don't believe one person's convenience outweighs another person's right to live. That is your postion, not mine.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Methinks you are projecting again. Don't believe me? Take a look at what you wrote and tell me who is lashing out.Again, you result to impotent, pointless attacks on me rather than offer up a rational defense of your postion. You claim that I am cold, bloodless, and vapid while trying to justify the fact that you favor allowing women to kill their children for any or no reason. In your attempt to describe me, you are describing yourself. I don't believe one person's convenience outweighs another person's right to live. That is your postion, not mine.

A rational argument won't work with a dung beetle--even a pale one. If survival of existing children is not a convenience you will grant a woman, then what have you to say? You would punish women exclusively for the sins of which we are all guilty, which is certainly "convenient" for you.

You are lashing out at half of the human race, I am lashing out at you personally. Don't like? Golly, I sure feel bad about that!

 

[palerider]

A rational argument won't work with a dung beetle--even a pale one.

Another dodge. Simply admit that you can't offer a rational argument in defense of your positon because your position is not rational to begin with.

You are lashing out at half of the human race, I am lashing out at you personally. Don't like? Golly, I sure feel bad about that!

Fully half of those being killed are female.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Another dodge. Simply admit that you can't offer a rational argument in defense of your positon because your position is not rational to begin with.Fully half of those being killed are female.

And fully all of the people being blamed are women. Works for you, doesn't it? Makes you just another misogynistic hypocrite.

 

[palerider]

And fully all of the people being blamed are women. Works for you, doesn't it? Makes you just another misogynistic hypocrite.

I also blame the doctors who perform abortions. They are no more and no less than hired killers.