Abortion, if you object does that mean you want to control women's uteri

Truncheon said:

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.

Click to expand...

I could see it as being nonscientific, since this would match what you just said. "Unscientific" carries the connotation of "against science".
As for abort, I see you engaging in some customized semantics. We abort what we can no longer commit to carrying, like the sea cucumber that eviscerates itself when it perceives a threat. It aborts its guts ... but that should not be taken as demonstration of the idea that the sea cucumber does not desire its innards.

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.

Click to expand...

But it is not. The very vigor of your protest suggests that you see that declaring the conceptus a person is every bit as arbitrary.

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.

Click to expand...

I will never raise a moral reason/excuse for killing a person based on status ... only actions. However I reject your attempt to axiomatize the personhood of an embryo. I could reverse the thrust of the accusation and ask you to explain (not simply declare) how a morula is an actual, immediate, nonpotential person eligible for full legal consideration. You cannot without invoking fallacy. cn

Truncheon said:

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.

Click to expand...

I am more on Cannabineer's side of this issue than yours, i.e. I am content with aborting a 4 week old fetus if a woman chooses to do so, but I too would like to hear C's moral justification. I don't have one.

cannabineer said:

declaring the conceptus a person is every bit as arbitrary.

Click to expand...

That might be an interesting point, had I declared such a thing. But of course, I did not.

My argument does not bear on issues of "personhood", and in fact I've been quite clear in my rejection of that entire premise, thus your comment is a straw man. Your argument requires the arbitrary notion of personhood, mine does not, nor have I offered any such justification.

cannabineer said:

I will never raise a moral reason/excuse for killing a person based on status

Click to expand...

So you're saying that you have no moral justification, you just won't accept my moral opposition.

desert dude said:

I am content with aborting a 4 week old fetus if a woman chooses to do so, but I too would like to hear C's moral justification. I don't have one.

Click to expand...

Why not at three weeks, or at six? It's purely arbitrary, and nobody has a moral argument since infanticide is utterly immoral despite the advances in technology that permit it to be practiced in-utero.

Killing one's own offspring is barbarism. Advanced medical techniques don't change that. It is arbitrary dehumanization for the purpose of selfishness, morally indistinguishable from slavery.

desert dude said:

I am more on Cannabineer's side of this issue than yours, i.e. I am content with aborting a 4 week old fetus if a woman chooses to do so, but I too would like to hear C's moral justification. I don't have one.

Click to expand...

I am more or less in the same camp. The only moral justification is that I don't have the right to make decisions for other humans that really doesn't involve me at all. In my mind, there has to be a point when the future human needs someone to speak for them though, so I really hate this topic.

Flip side is that saying, first they came for the jews, but I wasn't a jew, then they came for the fetuses, but I wasn't a fetus... or something like that.

Truncheon said:

That might be an interesting point, had I declared such a thing. Since my argument does not bear on issues of "personhood", and in fact I've been quite clear in my rejection of that entire premise, your comment is a straw man. Your argument requires the arbitrary notion of personhood, mine does not, nor has it.

Click to expand...

In your post 334, you repeatedly stress that the conceptus is "a human being". I am accepting that as equivalent to "a person".
In your post 338, you develop your idea that age does not begin at birth, but earlier. You don't actually say so, but conception is the only tangible landmark to which one might link age.
What interests me is that you are unilaterally declaring a morula to be a full person, if I am correctly following your logic.

So you're saying that you have no moral justification.

Click to expand...

That is not the only thing I am saying. I cannot develop "moral justification" as a reason, since I don't see a way to arrive at a universal moral standard. i contend, for example, that "natural law" is anything but. It was the artifice of 18th-century social philosophers, and I do not subscribe to it.
I'm saying that neither of us can claim to be morally right.

Why not at three weeks, or at six? It's purely arbitrary, and nobody has a moral argument since infanticide is utterly immoral despite the advances in technology that permit it to be practiced in-utero.

Click to expand...

If it is utterly immoral, why are some national health systems vigorously practicing mildly retroactive abortion? Note that i bring this up not in defense of the practice, as it horrifies me too. But that is a product of my culture-specific moral upbringing and not the manifestation of some sort of universal human truth. My opinion.

I would like to see you accept my invitation/challenge. Can you develop a moral argument that would, should compel me? One that derives from premises we both accept? cn

Truncheon said:

That might be an interesting point, had I declared such a thing. But of course, I did not.

My argument does not bear on issues of "personhood", and in fact I've been quite clear in my rejection of that entire premise, your comment is a straw man. Your argument requires the arbitrary notion of personhood, mine does not, nor have I offered any such justification.



So you're saying that you have no moral justification, you just won't accept my moral opposition.



Why not at three weeks, or at six? It's purely arbitrary, and nobody has a moral argument since infanticide is utterly immoral despite the advances in technology that permit it to be practiced in-utero.

Killing one's own offspring is barbarism. Advanced medical techniques don't change that.

Click to expand...

Agreed. It is arbitrary, and abortions are mostly done for reasons of convenience. It is easy to be emotionally unattached to a clump of cells than to a developed, though small and nonviable, fetus.

cannabineer said:

you repeatedly stress that the conceptus is "a human being". I am accepting that as equivalent to "a person".

Click to expand...

Your problems with basic English aren't my problem. Pretending that your straw man is excused by your conflation of terms is laughable. What's the point of taking you seriously, when you're willing ... and apparently have zero shame ... at conflating terms to build straw men? Obviously, I've employed "human being" precisely to distinguish my view from yours.

Since you have no intention of being intellectually honest, or addressing the request, we're done here. There is no reconciliation of our premises. There is no middle ground between food, and poison.

cannabineer said:

If it is utterly immoral, why are some national health systems vigorously practicing mildly retroactive abortion? Note that i bring this up not in defense of the practice, as it horrifies me too. But that is a product of my culture-specific moral upbringing and not the manifestation of some sort of universal human truth. My opinion.
cn

Click to expand...

Well we know why China and other overpopulated places do this. It's population control. Something I see advocated as a reason here in the US too. I'm sure you've heard the argument that if we don't abort them, they'll just end up on welfare and it's an even bigger strain on society than just paying for the abortion. ftr, these people suck.

I'm with on your morality stance. I can't think of anything concretely moral about it.

Truncheon said:

Your problems with basic English aren't my problem. Since you have no intention of being intellectually honest, or addressing the request, we're done here. There is no reconciliation of our premises. There is no middle ground between food, and poison.

Click to expand...

Easy there. If you can develop a semantic difference between "person" and "human being", go for it. But I suspect you're being caught at your own game (customized use of language) and not liking the flavor much. cn

cannabineer said:

If you can develop a semantic difference between "person" and "human being", go for it.

Click to expand...

I don't need to develop a "semantic" difference. The two terms are obvious in their emphasis, and the context of our conversation remains available for all to see. Person is a subset of human being in our discussion, obviously, based on your useage and our context. I presume you understand the "semantic" meaning of context...

Your shortcomings in English comprehension don't constitute a problem on the part of others, nor a rebuttal of any significance.

Truncheon said:

I don't need to develop a "semantic" difference. The two terms are obvious in their emphasis, and the context of our conversation remains available for all to see. I presume you understand the "semantic" meaning of context...

Your shortcomings in English comprehension don't constitute a problem on the part of others, nor a rebuttal of any significance.

Click to expand...

Oh my oh my. Quoted to protect against editing. The cinema called ... they're missing a projector. cn

cannabineer said:

The cinema called ... they're missing a projector.

Click to expand...

When unable to develop a cogent response, the liberal invariably descends into schoolyard taunts.

^^guy thinks I'm a liberal. cn

I would say liberal for a polar bear, but my polar bear knowledge is a pretty small sample size. You could be conservative for a polar bear. I just don't know for sure.

I'm still leaning liberal for a polar bear but you would be in the extreme right wing of the penguin section.

Truncheon said:

When unable to develop a cogent response, the liberal invariably descends into schoolyard taunts.

Click to expand...

hey liberal douchebag! who said the following?

"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"

UncleBuck said:

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.

Click to expand...

Again trying to distort facts to make someone look like a bigot is backfiring. Not only are you a brain dead hack, you're a bad one at that.

CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men


A data analysis released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscores the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States.

The data, presented at CDC's 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.


The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women.


The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.


While CDC data have shown for several years that gay and bisexual men make up the majority of new HIV and new syphilis infections, CDC has estimated the rates of these diseases for the first time based on new estimates of the size of the U.S. population of MSM. Because disease rates account for differences in the size of populations being compared, rates provide a reliable method for assessing health disparities between populations.


http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html

ginwilly said:

I would say liberal for a polar bear, but my polar bear knowledge is a pretty small sample size. You could be conservative for a polar bear. I just don't know for sure.

I'm still leaning liberal for a polar bear but you would be in the extreme right wing of the penguin section.

Click to expand...

Those tuxedoed Guevaristas?? Pfeh. cn

When I was younger this guy "Chuck" knocked up my this girl my girlfriend was friends with. They were "in love" Well, she wanted to get an abortion, but he demanded her not to or he'd break up with her. He proposed to her, said he'd get a job and they'd get married blah, blah, blah. Well about 2 weeks before she gave birth he left her ass. He couldn't stand her emotional state and was screwing this slutty girl who lived downstairs in lew of having sex with his "fat cow" of a pregnant fiance. I told her before they got together that the guy was a douche bag liar but that's the type she was attracted to. She was going to give her to her aunt in Florida, who wanted a baby and was unable to have one. So days before her Aunt is going to move both her and the baby down to Florida for a couple months who comes back? Chuck. Saying he was sorry for the way he treated her and that he loved her, she decided to keep the baby. 2 months later he's living with the slutty girl downstairs that he got pregnant. Well, Chuck's old fiance lives with her Aunt in Florida hope she's doing well, haven't seen her since. A friend told me he talked to Chuck like 7 years later and he found out that the slutty girl's kid wasn't even his. The moral of the story; Don't let anyone else make decisions for you.

I say remove their uteri and let us feast.

Problem solved.