each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.

[Prestor John]

She can have a conscience and still abort.

That is debatable.

That she disagrees with your biased, and rather uninformed opinion, does not make her without a conscience.

Vague criticisms again.

Biology, logic and morality are not on your side here.

She is not killing a baby. That is illegal.

If the law disagrees with both logic and science, then the law is in the wrong.

Also, are you assuming that everything "legal" is beyond reproach? Something being "legal" cannot be unconscionable?

But yes, you are right that if she does have the child she can put it up for adoption. Congratulations! You finally got one minor point right.

How gracious and dishonest of you.

No, no "whoa" needed. A fetus is not a child. That is clearly defined.

By biologists right? Or some other field of science that can make that determination?

You may choose to call one that but you would be in error.

According to the same governing body that put people in chains after labeling them "less than human"?

Are you going to defend that too?

As in your use of loaded questions by misusing the word "baby" you use loaded terminology.

It's only loaded to you and others who are trying to justify their political agenda and the killing of unborn babies.

Reasonable people, who look to logic and science to determine physical reality, see nothing wrong with the question.

And once again you end your argument with an equivocation fallacy.

So, are you saying that you can prove that a unborn baby is not human?

The word "human" has more than one definition and you are trying to use one definition of the word to support your argument for another usage of the term.

According to your agenda, not fact.

You appear to have a difficult time understanding the difference between biologically "human" and legally "human".

No, you don't understand that the law cannot make that determination.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe you could help me here then because I cannot think of any positive results.

You have a knack for giving very vague answers and criticisms which bear no actual substance.

Here is another example of you giving a very vague criticism. Perhaps offer some specifics?

A claim to some anecdotal evidence is not very convincing.

Are you sure you didn't also decide at that time to not read or only "scan" my posts?

Maybe you only assumed my position then, like you have done repeatedly here in this thread?

Of course I'm paying attention.

If you had actually read my post, instead of merely scanning it, you would know that,

1.) I proved that you had lied about your belief that the term "human" is subjective,

2.) I pointed out that your entire argument is based on an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy and is hardly effective or convincing.

3.) Your claims that I am employing "red herrings", "strawmen" or that my posts have nothing to do with the argument is based on your false assumption that you have the authority to decide the focus of this discussion.

You want this to be a discussion about how "human" is defined legally, while I have always been focusing on how "human" should only be defined biologically.

4.) Most of your criticisms are vague ad hominem attacks about my supposed inability to reason or to be honest.

5.) You have no idea what my position on this topic is since you are claiming that I want to oppose a woman's right to choose when I never said I did.

6.) You don't seem to understand what an equivocation argument is.

7.) You lack very basic knowledge of human history.

I'm sure there is more, but you'd just have to read my posts to know.

Once you come to understand my actual position on this matter, you'll see that I haven't been employing any of those logical fallacies.

try again. Let's not be rude. Excessive "blowing up" of posts is both rude and dishonest. By doing so you quote out of context which is a form of lying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is debatable.

Vague criticisms again.

Biology, logic and morality are not on your side here.

If the law disagrees with both logic and science, then the law is in the wrong.

Also, are you assuming that everything "legal" is beyond reproach? Something being "legal" cannot be unconscionable?

How gracious and dishonest of you.

By biologists right? Or some other field of science that can make that determination?

According to the same governing body that put people in chains after labeling them "less than human"?

Are you going to defend that too?

It's only loaded to you and others who are trying to justify their political agenda and the killing of unborn babies.

Reasonable people, who look to logic and science to determine physical reality, see nothing wrong with the question.

So, are you saying that you can prove that a unborn baby is not human?

According to your agenda, not fact.

No, you don't understand that the law cannot make that determination.

Again, lying by quoting out of context. There is no need, not is it honest, to respond to each sentence separately. Surely your reading comprehension cannot be that poor.

Try again.

 

[Valjean]

I'm confused on why we can't use "human" and "person."

Who said you couldn't? They just designate different things.
"Human" means H. sapiens, it designates our biological species.
A "person" is a sentient organism. See my previous example: a little green man from Mars is a person, but he's not human.

 

[Prestor John]

Who said you couldn't? They just designate different things.
"Human" means H. sapiens, it designates our biological species.
A "person" is a sentient organism. See my previous example: a little green man from Mars is a person, but he's not human.

I thought you said that you believed that a fetus could not be a "person."

I would refer to the unborn as both a "human" and as a "person."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought you said that you believed that a fetus could not be a "person."

I would refer to the unborn as both a "human" and as a "person."

He does, he was being clear in his usage of terms. You are back to using an equivocation fallacy.

 

[Prestor John]

Let's not be rude. Excessive "blowing up" of posts is both rude and dishonest.

First off, what is "blowing up"? Is it repeating points I made in earlier posts because you refused to read them?

Perhaps I would not feel inclined to reiterate what I had said previously if you actually read my posts? Stop ignoring what you don't like?

Are you able to reference which forum rule I am breaking?

Second, isn't it more "rude" and "dishonest" to ignore what your opponent says and then lie about both what he and you yourself have claimed?

You lied about your claim that the term "human" was subjective and you also falsely claimed that I oppposed a woman's right to choose.

By doing so you quote out of context which is a form of lying.

As I said before, you have a knack for giving very vague answers and criticisms.

Where did I quote you or anyone else out of context?

Why not quote me doing so? Remember that advice you gave me?

Again, lying by quoting out of context.

Again, vague. Quote me.

Criticizing me for not quoting you and then you never quoting me is hypocritical of you, is it not?

There is no need, not is it honest, to respond to each sentence separately.

I developed a habit of responding directly to almost everything my opponent said because many people complained that I was ignoring key points they had made.

Just like how you, for example, have been ignoring most of the points I have been making about you lying, using logical fallacies (appeal to authority), making false assumptions about my position, putting words in my mouth, etc.

You ignoring those points I made caused me to repeat them in later posts.

Surely your reading comprehension cannot be that poor.

That's hypocritical coming from someone who lacks the ability to read through a single post.

You never answered the question of why you did that. Your laziness or cowardice?

You have a habit of ignoring things you don't like or that are inconvenient for you.

Like the human life growing inside of a pregnant woman.

It's an inconvenience so ignore logic, science and morality - label it as something "less than human" - then destroy it.

You're making slave-holders and tyrannical dictators proud!

He does, he was being clear in his usage of terms. You are back to using an equivocation fallacy.

Really? When did I say that a "human" and a "person" must be the same thing?

As I said before, you don't seem to know what an "equivocation argument" is.

 

[Spiderman]

a personal choice or a question of morality?

The post I'm quoting was
, Mar 2, 2017

This thread doesn't end lol

 

[Subduction Zone]

First off, what is "blowing up"? Is it repeating points I made in earlier posts because you refused to read them?

Perhaps I would not feel inclined to reiterate what I had said previously if you actually read my posts? Stop ignoring what you don't like?

Are you able to reference which forum rule I am breaking?

Second, isn't it more "rude" and "dishonest" to ignore what your opponent says and then lie about both what he and you yourself have claimed?

You lied about your claim that the term "human" was subjective and you also falsely claimed that I oppposed a woman's right to choose.

As I said before, you have a knack for giving very vague answers and criticisms.

Where did I quote you or anyone else out of context?

Why not quote me doing so? Remember that advice you gave me?

Again, vague. Quote me.

Criticizing me for not quoting you and then you never quoting me is hypocritical of you, is it not?

I developed a habit of responding directly to almost everything my opponent said because many people complained that I was ignoring key points they had made.

Just like how you, for example, have been ignoring most of the points I have been making about you lying, using logical fallacies (appeal to authority), making false assumptions about my position, putting words in my mouth, etc.

You ignoring those points I made caused me to repeat them in later posts.

That's hypocritical coming from someone who lacks the ability to read through a single post.

You never answered the question of why you did that. Your laziness or cowardice?

You have a habit of ignoring things you don't like or that are inconvenient for you.

Like the human life growing inside of a pregnant woman.

It's an inconvenience so ignore logic, science and morality - label it as something "less than human" - then destroy it.

You're making slave-holders and tyrannical dictators proud!

Really? When did I say that a "human" and a "person" must be the same thing?

As I said before, you don't seem to know what an "equivocation argument" is.

Oh my! Some people have no clue.

 

[Prestor John]

Oh my! Some people have no clue.

Just more ad hominem, eh?

Are you done then?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just more ad hominem, eh?

Are you done then?

No ad hominem, observation. Remember, you do not understand logical fallacies. If you apologize for your rudeness I will gladly explain how you were rude.

 

[Prestor John]

Wow. This is really sad.

No ad hominem, observation.

Yeah, you're not fooling anyone. And you claim that I do not understand logical fallacies?

Uh oh. I responded to a separate sentence! I must be lying or quoting you out of context somehow!

Yet...you never explained how that was dishonest, nor did you share an example of how I lied or quoted you out of context.

It's probably because you are full of it!

Remember, you do not understand logical fallacies.

Subduction Zone's thought process:
"Should I claim that he is using a "red herring" again? What about a "strawman"? "Equivocation argument"?

Doh! I don't know any other logical fallacies to throw at him!

I guess I'll stall now and hope that he goes away!

Beats actually engaging in the discussion!"

I hope you see the irony in using logical fallacies to tell me that I don't understand logical fallacies.

L-O-L

If you apologize for your rudeness I will gladly explain how you were rude.

Hmmm. Is that something like,

"If you apologize for killing babies I will gladly explain how you killed babies."?

What was that thing you accused me of doing? Something about a "loaded" baked potato? "Loaded" something?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

You have yet to quote me saying or doing anything you have accused me of, which directly contradicts the advice you gave me.

Why are you doing this to yourself?​

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow. This is really sad.

Yeah, you're not fooling anyone. And you claim that I do not understand logical fallacies?

Uh oh. I responded to a separate sentence! I must be lying or quoting you out of context somehow!

Yet...you never explained how that was dishonest, nor did you share an example of how I lied or quoted you out of context.

It's probably because you are full of it!

Subduction Zone's thought process:
"Should I claim that he is using a "red herring" again? What about a "strawman"? "Equivocation argument"?

Doh! I don't know any other logical fallacies to throw at him!

I guess I'll stall now and hope that he goes away!

Beats actually engaging in the discussion!"

I hope you see the irony in using logical fallacies to tell me that I don't understand logical fallacies.

L-O-L

Hmmm. Is that something like,

"If you apologize for killing babies I will gladly explain how you killed babies."?

What was that thing you accused me of doing? Something about a "loaded" baked potato? "Loaded" something?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

You have yet to quote me saying or doing anything you have accused me of, which directly contradicts the advice you gave me.

Why are you doing this to yourself?​

I see that you still can't help but to be rude. Such a shame.

 

[Valjean]

I thought you said that you believed that a fetus could not be a "person."

I would refer to the unborn as both a "human" and as a "person."

I don't understand the contradiction you seem to be referring to.
I would characterize a foetus as human, but not yet a person.

 

[Prestor John]

I see that you still can't help but to be rude. Such a shame.

I admit I could have been less abrasive, but you cannot dispute that you were the one who set the tone for our discussion.

From the very beginning you claimed that I was dishonest, stupid, unable to reason, lacked reading comprehension, employed various logical fallacies, etc.

Not only this, but you ignored my responses to those claims as well as my demand for specific examples and explanation.

Then, after being pressed for these things, you ran away and have stuck to slinging ad hominem attacks at me ever since.

If you are willing to take responsibility for what you have done to the degradation of this discussion, then I would be willing to be more civil.

 

[Prestor John]

I don't understand the contradiction you seem to be referring to.

I did not claim that there was any contradiction.

All I said was that I was confused by your need to come up with a third term, rather than "human" or "person" for an unborn baby.

Then I became more confused when you said that there was no reason for why I could not use those terms to describe an unborn baby.

I understand that "human" and "person" do not mean the same thing.

I just thought you were going back and amending what you had said previously concerning your belief that an unborn baby was "human" but not a "person."

I now understand that you did not do this.

I would characterize a foetus as human, but not yet a person.

I understand this. Thank you.

I do have a few more questions for you, if you don't mind.

When you first explained the difference between "human" and "person" you used the comparison of a "human kidney" to a "human foetus."

Do you believe that a kidney and a foetus are really comparable?

Removing a foetus is the same as removing a kidney, even though we both agree that the foetus is a separate "human" from the mother?

Since you claim that a human foetus is a "human", you would not consider the removal and destruction of said foetus to be "killing", "murdering" or "destroying" another human?

Has it been proven, beyond doubt, that a foetus lacks sentience?

Lastly, in your opinion, when does a foetus become a person?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I admit I could have been less abrasive, but you cannot dispute that you were the one who set the tone for our discussion.

From the very beginning you claimed that I was dishonest, stupid, unable to reason, lacked reading comprehension, employed various logical fallacies, etc.

Not only this, but you ignored my responses to those claims as well as my demand for specific examples and explanation.

Then, after being pressed for these things, you ran away and have stuck to slinging ad hominem attacks at me ever since.

If you are willing to take responsibility for what you have done to the degradation of this discussion, then I would be willing to be more civil.

I was only slightly rude in response to ignorant responses which are also rude by their very nature.

I never claimed that you were stupid. You have shown that you were dishonest. You have employed various logical fallacies. Denying the explanations was dishonest.

Do you wish to try again? Do you think that you can do better this time? By the way others have notice your errors too which is why they tried to define "human" and "person" differently. But then you went back to he old equivocation fallacy again.

 

[gnostic]

women who have an abortion do so for many relationship problems,not wanting to be a single mother,others view abortion as a violation.
in God's eyes human life is sacred

Are you seriously going to use the bible to say “life is sacred” to us?

How many times have god arranged children to be killed?

In 1 Samuel 15, God gave the command to Saul through Samuel, to kill all man, woman and “child”, even animals, among the Amalekites, not because of what the Amalekites did to Saul’s generation, but what the Amalekites did in Moses’ generation (Exodus 17).

But Amalekite army was already defeated by Joshua and Moses’ army.

This show God holding grudges even though generations have passed.

So basically, god even had babies killed at his order, and possibly even pregnant women.

So much for God holding human life as precious. God took the decision out of hands of women and children, by ordering them being killed preemptively.

 

[Milton Platt]

women who have an abortion do so for many relationship problems,not wanting to be a single mother,others view abortion as a violation.
in God's eyes human life is sacred

Then why is your god so cavalier about life?

 

[Milton Platt]

a personal choice or a question of morality?

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

The problem with "pro-life" folks is they are really only "pro-birth". They never give a thought to the life of the baby once it is born.