Abortion, if you object does that mean you want to control women's uteri
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Truncheon, by describing a smear of cells with ambitions as "a youth" you beg the question. cn
What question?
Every human being of a certain youth resembles a smear of cells, that's fundamental human biology, the most studied, photographed, and understood scientific reality there is. I don't bother entertaining arguments in which I'm expected to suspend my knowledge and understanding of the human reproductive cycle.
Obviously, and by definition, abortion exists to "abort" the normal human reproductive cycle. So only the most willfully obtuse will then proceed to argue that what's being aborted isn't a young person ... since that's the whole goal.
If that's the wacky road you want to walk down, you'll have to find someone else to talk to. I'm not that dumb even when I'm baked.
nontheist
Well-Known Member
Yep we should tax athletes more do to the injuries they sustain in their profession
We should tax construction workers and fishermen more because of their high risk occupation.
We should tax poor people more because their high consumption low output levels.
We should tax bastard children because they cost a ton.
We should tax the government because they're the most expensive and inefficient.
We should tax sickly people more for obvious reasons.
We should tax vegan more because everyone hates them
We should tax crackheads more because of their addictive personality
We should tax tax luekemia patients more because of the cost of treatment
We should tax lupus patients more because of the cost of treatment
We should tax gays more because of increased HIV
We should tax Unclebuck more because we have to filter through his stupid ass ideas on a perfect society when a 3rd grader with down-syndrome could do better.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Nice use of ad hominem for someone who claims to be the adult.
But you do other injuries to rationality as well. You consider it axiom that all human life = person and proceed from there. You're loading the argument with terms and definitions that you somehow place above review. That's not debate I'm gonna bite into. cn
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
still showing off that world famous, down home, three tooth having, sister fucking, southern bigotry, i see.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
There was zero ad hominem. Ad hominem is an argument against the man, it takes the following form:
Town Drunk: "The sky is blue!"
Town Elder: "This man is a drunkard, and a violator of all our laws. A man of his low repute cannot be trusted. Thus, the sky cannot be blue!"
Implying that you're stupid is not ad hominem, it is merely insult.
Of course. Because to say, "You're not old enough to be a person" is morally equal to saying "You're not white enough to be a person". I've made this clear from the start, it is the fundament of our disagreement. You wish to arbitrarily decide who is a person, I don't think such arbitration is moral.
You can't just sweep away the central contention, you need to morally justify yours. I'd like an explicit moral breakdown of why you should be able to unilaterally kill another human being, in the absence of due process, based on age.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
A kindergarten attorney is among us!
If we're gonna split definitive hairs, i could fillet your statement that abortion (definitively, no less!) is aborting the human reproductive cycle. Did I forget normal?
And yet it is actually the aborting of a conceptus and not a cycle. There are other peculiarities in your declarations, but I'm saving them in case of boredom. cn cn
nontheist
Well-Known Member
Bigotry? Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't gays have an increased chance of contracting HIV? If so they knew the risk fuck it lets tax them more, that is what you're suggesting.
We aren't splitting any hairs, the definition of ad hominem remains what it's been for a thousand years.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
What I'd like to hear is an explicit moral breakdown justifying the arbitrary killing of a human being in the absence of due process, that counters my moral argument regarding the common arbitrariness of slavery and abortion. Do proceed.
Since the entire purpose of abortion is to prevent the emergence of a human being, arguments that counter-intuitively seek to dehumanize won't be acceptable, since the human reproductive cycle is not a mystery.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
lol, i can practically hear the jerry springer in the background while you and your cousin fondle each other.
"doesn't gays...?"
straight people do most of the HIV spreading in the world, far and away. yet we should tax the gays because it's not natural, unlike your sister fucking cousin fondling ways.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
First we must produce a human being. Traditionally this is called "birth".
I agree that a baby about to be born deserves full legal protection as a person.
I also posit that a four-week conceptus is ineligible for that status and those protections.
But why would you insist on a moral breakdown? This thread is about legality. Are you moving the goalposts onto comfy terrain?
And are you aware that morality is not absolute, much to the dismay of doctrinaires throughout history? You'll end up fender-deep in mud if you try to raise an argument based on a chimera of universal morality. cn
cn
Slavery was once about legality. It was perfectly legal, but because it was so heinously immoral, it left a permanent stain on our history.
Legality and morality are distinct concepts, and since abortion is legal there is no point in discussing legality except to the extent that it permits acts that are patently immoral. And actually, this entire thread involves answering a question, "Is restricting abortion actually controlling someone's uterus". My answer was no.
I have provided reasoning based on science and moral examination to explain the immorality and arbitrary quality of killing people based on their age. I'd like to hear you mount a moral justification for the status quo, without dipping into irrational or unscientific justifications such as that a very young person isn't actually a person when we all know the biology involved.
We all know that a person grows in the mother's womb for nine months. The transition from womb to out of womb doesn't change anything, it's just a hallmark of a certain age, like your first birthday party.
Nobody is moving the goalposts, you're just finding your position increasingly difficult to defend.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
How is acknowledging the nonpersonhood of an early conceptus unscientific?
And how do you imagine you can use science to make or break a moral argument?
Either we argue morals, or we argue biology. But I will ask you to choose one and pursue it. Mixing the two "on the fly" is not hygienic, regardless of the type of fly. cn
Because it is an arbitrary assignment that has nothing to do with science. There is no scientific measure of "person", but we know how every single human being develops in excruciating detail. And what you abort is what you don't desire ... another person, obviously.
Declaring, "You aren't a person until you're four weeks, so I'll kill you" is as unscientific and arbitrary as, "You are too black to be a person, so I'll kill you." This should be pretty clearly obvious.
Now, we can dance all day long, but I'd like to hear your moral explanation for why you should be able to arbitrarily kill people who are younger than X. If you are unable to formulate a moral response, and are going to continue shrinking away and trying to evade the subject, then there's no purpose continuing. I think I've been quite fair, and deserve my answer, to the best of your ability.