each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.

[Subduction Zone]

I find that discussing this subject with hardcore feticide rights people is about the same as discussing biology with creationists. They simply ignore science, redefine words to suit their agenda, and launch personal attacks when their arguments fail.

I have to be in just the right mood to wade in to the mess.
Tom

I think that you have that backwards. The person that you responded to is guilty of those crimes. He is one that keeps trying to redefine a fetus as a "baby". I know that you are anti-abortion, but you seem to have a hard time justifying that belief as well. You tend to ultimately insult the women that are in need of such services.

 

[Prestor John]

Please pay attention. I said that I skimmed it, reread my post. Poor reading comprehension may explain this inability to understand. I could see false claim after false claim with excuse after excuse. It was too boring to deal with. When you have to "blow up" a post by putting a paragraph to every sentence, which were often taken out of context, it makes for a worthless post.

If you can debate properly I will gladly do so. But in a proper debate you appear to know that you will lose so you try to make emotional and personal attacks. Those are not worth responding to.

You still have yet to provide an example of anything you claim.

I guess your cycle of laziness and cowardice continues.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You still have yet to provide an example of anything you claim.

I guess your cycle of laziness and cowardice continues.

Wrong again, I did so in the past. I am not going to play the silly game of going back and showing you were you were incredibly dishonest. Your post failed for the reasons that I gave. When you are ready to debate properly I am here. Once again you are not fooling anyone.

 

[Prestor John]

Wrong again, I did so in the past. I am not going to play the silly game of going back and showing you were you were incredibly dishonest. Your post failed for the reasons that I gave. When you are ready to debate properly I am here. Once again you are not fooling anyone.

Being able to go back in a debate and quote your opponent to prove your accusations against them is crucial.

You have no idea what actual debate is if you consider that to be a "silly game."

So, to you, debate is;

1.) making unfounded claims about what your opponent has said (which you never back up by quoting your opponent),

2.) erecting strawmen and appealing to authority (logical fallacies),

3.) slinging ad hominem attacks (another logical fallacy),

4.) ignore what your opponent has said (no one is buying your claim of skimming anything since you keep claiming I said things I never actually said) and then,

5.) making lame excuses in a failed attempt to justify fleeing (demanding apologies for imagined slights and making up subjective rules about what behavior is rude or not).

In a proper debate, when you want to make a claim about something your opponent has said, you quote what they said and then explain your claim.

In a proper debate, you shouldn't distract from the actual arguments with logical fallacies.

In a proper debate, you shouldn't ignore what your opponent has said.

In a proper debate, you shouldn't make up your own rules about what is or is not "rude" and then demand an apology from your opponent because they did not live up to your imagined and subjective standards.

In a proper debate, the behavior of your opponent does not matter and you should remain focused on the arguments presented.

Our entire discussion is recorded here so everyone can see how delusional and unreasonable you have been.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Being able to go back in a debate and quote your opponent to prove your accusations against them is crucial.

You have no idea what actual debate is if you consider that to be a "silly game."

So, to you, debate is;

1.) making unfounded claims about what your opponent has said (which you never back up by quoting your opponent),

2.) erecting strawmen and appealing to authority (logical fallacies),

3.) slinging ad hominem attacks (another logical fallacy),

4.) ignore what your opponent has said (no one is buying your claim of skimming anything since you keep claiming I said things I never actually said) and then,

5.) making lame excuses in a failed attempt to justify fleeing (demanding apologies for imagined slights and making up subjective rules about what behavior is rude or not).

In a proper debate, when you want to make a claim about something your opponent has said, you quote what they said and then explain your claim.

In a proper debate, you shouldn't distract from the actual arguments with logical fallacies.

In a proper debate, you shouldn't ignore what your opponent has said.

In a proper debate, you shouldn't make up your own rules about what is or is not "rude" and then demand an apology from your opponent because they did not live up to your imagined and subjective standards.

In a proper debate, the behavior of your opponent does not matter and you should remain focused on the arguments presented.

Our entire discussion is recorded here so everyone can see how delusional and unreasonable you have been.

Oh my, the projection is truly epic.

Once again, when you can debate properly I am here.

By the way, since you do not understand how logical fallacies work it would be wise not to try to use them.

 

[Prestor John]

Oh my, the projection is truly epic.

Once again, when you can debate properly I am here.

By the way, since you do not understand how logical fallacies work it would be wise not to try to use them.

That's just so pathetic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's just so pathetic.

It was quite accurate. You get mad when your errors are made clear. Now all you have dishonest personal attacks.l

Do you think that you can debate without posting equivocation fallacies? In the past you seemed to think that making your errors clear was an ad hominem fallacy. You should leave logic to those that no how to use it. All you can do is to parrot phrases that you cannot apply correctly.

 

[Prestor John]

It was quite accurate. You get mad when your errors are made clear. Now all you have dishonest personal attacks.l

Do you think that you can debate without posting equivocation fallacies? In the past you seemed to think that making your errors clear was an ad hominem fallacy. You should leave logic to those that no how to use it. All you can do is to parrot phrases that you cannot apply correctly.

Why can't you follow the advice you gave to me in post #251, which was,

"It is always a good idea to quote rather than to incorrectly interpret what somebody said."

Rather than repeatedly claiming that I am being dishonest or that I am employing logical fallacies, why not follow your own advice and directly quote me doing these things?

Quote where I got mad because you had exposed my errors.

Quote where I used an equivocation fallacy.

Quote where I claimed that exposing my errors was an ad hominem attack.

If you refuse to directly quote me doing these things then you are a hypocrite for refusing to follow your own advice which you advocated I take and use.

The fact that you would choose to shut down the discussion rather than directly quote me doing these things makes your claims appear less credible.

Also using such cheap and lame excuses as "You need to apologize first!" and "You're being rude!" to try to justify your running away makes you look dishonest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why can't you follow the advice you gave to me in post #251, which was,

"It is always a good idea to quote rather than to incorrectly interpret what somebody said."

Rather than repeatedly claiming that I am being dishonest or that I am employing logical fallacies, why not follow your own advice and directly quote me doing these things?

Quote where I got mad because you had exposed my errors.

Quote where I used an equivocation fallacy.

Quote where I claimed that exposing my errors was an ad hominem attack.

If you refuse to directly quote me doing these things then you are a hypocrite for refusing to follow your own advice which you advocated I take and use.

The fact that you would choose to shut down the discussion rather than directly quote me doing these things makes your claims appear less credible.

Also using such cheap and lame excuses as "You need to apologize first!" and "You're being rude!" to try to justify your running away makes you look dishonest.

it appears that you are being a slow learner again. I already explained that I am not going to waste the time dredging up your last failures. You could not learn from your errors then I am sure that you will not be able to learn if I point out your errors again.

You were being incredibly dishonest and that was why I demanded an apology. It appears that you knew that was the case since it still rankles you.

Once more, if you wish to debate properly and honestly I am here. Your last failures are still there for those that are interested in them.

 

[Prestor John]

Sorry for the delay.

There are usually overlapping or hierarchic terms for the same things, denoting different aspects. Diagram human (n), human (adj), person and baby and their diagrams will only partially overlap.

I cannot agree with this if I am understanding it correctly.

All human (adj) babies are humans (n) as well as persons.

I contend that drawing the line of what or who is “a human” or “a person” at any point other than conception will result in a very blurry line that we could not necessary apply to other humans or persons.

"Baby" usually denotes a free-living, post-natal organism. "Sentient" focuses on self awareness, and "person" adds a moral aspect.

I do not see any reason why the not-yet-born cannot be described as both a “baby” and a “person” other than for those political.

There are persons, from infants to the elderly, who rely on various methods of life support.

Is someone robbed of their “personhood” when they need an iron lung so they can breathe?

Does not the reaction of the not-yet-born to external stimuli, such as voices, music and movements denote sentience?

All of my children sucked on their thumbs in the womb. One of the ways they relieved their stress and sought comfort.

Are unconscious people no longer “sentient” or “persons”?

Both consist of human (adj) tissues, but neither is an independent organism; neither has all the qualities that would qualify it for personhood and full moral consideration.

Whether or not you consider a foetus a “person” is irrelevant to your comparison of a “human foetus” to a “human kidney”.

Considering that a ‘human foetus’ does not share the exact DNA of either the mother or father, it would be impossible, in my opinion, to compare it to a kidney or some random growth.

Also, considering what you said about “personhood”, it correlates with what I said earlier about any line being drawn anywhere other than at conception being “blurry”.

If you consider an organism’s “independence” to be a key to it’s “personhood”, then there are many people in the world who you should no longer consider to be “persons.”

The word “independent” could be interpreted any number of ways and by your standard “personhood” can be stripped away depending on that interpretation.

This is why I claim that all humans (n) are “persons”, no matter which stage of their development they may currently be in since the moment they were conceived.

Now you're using 'human' as a noun, implying a discrete organism. Ie: organ vs parasite.

I thought that you believed that the not-yet-born were human beings. You said earlier in post # 239 that,

“A young foetus is 'human', but is not a person. It lacks the features associated with personhood, therefore, any claim moral consideration needs further support.”

Another example of where I thought you were claiming that a foetus was “a human” was in post # 288, when you said,

“"Human" I equate with Homo sapiens, it's a biological designation. We may say a 'human' kidney' or 'human foetus', for example.”

I understood that the reason you expressed kidney as ‘human’ kidney and a foetus as ‘human foetus’ was to share examples of both human (adj) and human (n).

I suppose I misunderstood your position?

Also, if I am understanding what you wrote correctly, how can you compare a foetus to a parasite?

Parasites are not of the same species as the host and they also reproduce while in the host body.

Would you consider chicks in unhatched eggs to also be parasites? They are incubating offspring, just like human foetus’ in the womb.

Or does the foetus need to be incubating inside the body of the mother in order for you to consider it a parasite?

If I understand what you said correctly, the foetus’ of mammals and other organisms that incubate inside another member of their species are “parasites”, while the foetus’ of birds, reptiles and other organisms that incubate their offspring by laying eggs would not be considered “parasites”?

We must have drawn the short-straw since we start off as “parasites” while members of other species can start off as simply offspring.

A foetus may be human, but I'd hesitate to call it "a" human. That implies a complete, free-living organism.

So, “incomplete” people aren’t human(n)?

A “person” with a physical or mental impairment can’t be described as “a” human”?

I hit my head too hard or lost a limb in an accident, therefore I also lose my claim to humanity?

This is not to mention all those people who can no longer be considered “free-living” due to illness, disability or age.

Once you are on life support, you lose your claim to being “a” human?

Once you are placed in an old-folks home, you’re not a human being anymore?

Once you take that welfare check you can’t be considered “free-living” anymore!

I know I have entered the realm of the absurd, but I’m just stressing my point of there being “blurry” lines after conception.

"Kill" can apply to anything alive.
"Destroy" is even broader -- I can destroy a television or an argument.
"Murder" is a legal term for an illegal killing -- like shooting an enemy soldier in a non-UN sanctioned war.

Yet, you can do all three to a human being. These terms are not mutually exclusive.

No more than it's been proven that an unborn mouse lacks sentience, or the tree in my back yard, for that matter.

I see no reason outside of political motivation to not “err on the side of caution.”

Because if the not-yet-born are sentient, then they are a “person” and qualify for full moral consideration.

I don't know. Personhood entails various qualities, which develop at different points. In terms of moral consideration in relation to abortion, though -- which I assume is the focus of your question -- I'd oppose aborting a healthy, viable, late trimester foetus, even though its status as a full person may not be clear.

Why?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Sorry for the delay.

I cannot agree with this if I am understanding it correctly.

All human (adj) babies are humans (n) as well as persons.

I contend that drawing the line of what or who is “a human” or “a person” at any point other than conception will result in a very blurry line that we could not necessary apply to other humans or persons.

It's really pretty simple. Come up with a clear definition of what constitutes a person, and then you can draw a line exactly where it falls.

I see no reason outside of political motivation to not “err on the side of caution.”

We already er extremely on the side of caution. The reason outside of political motivation to not er moreso is that sometimes people get pregnant with babies they don't want. Now, you may not LIKE that reason, but it remains a reason nonetheless.

Because if the not-yet-born are sentient, then they are a “person” and qualify for full moral consideration.

Neuroscience is a long way from determining what sentience IS, exactly, but we have a pretty clear understanding of basic hardware requirements to support it. I absolutely agree that sentient foetuses should be given all the protections of any other person. I have seen no evidence, however, to suggest that such a thing exists, arguably at all, but certainly not at the early stages of pregnancy we're discussing here.

 

[Prestor John]

It's really pretty simple. Come up with a clear definition of what constitutes a person, and then you can draw a line exactly where it falls.

Are you being serious? I literally just did that. You just directly replied to what I believe is the "clear definition" of "personhood."

I said,

"I contend that drawing the line of what or who is “a human” or “a person” at any point other than conception will result in a very blurry line that we could not necessary apply to other humans or persons." (Bold and italics added)

We already er extremely on the side of caution. The reason outside of political motivation to not er moreso is that sometimes people get pregnant with babies they don't want.

You're right. My mistake. I have the habit of assuming that I have these discussions with decent people.

The idea that a human life being inconvenient to someone gives them the right to destroy it is evil. Plain and simple.

I will never support the idea that a person has the right to kill you or anyone else simply for being an inconvenience.

If you don't want a baby, don't get a pregnant. If you get pregnant and don't want the baby, put it up for adoption.

Now, you may not LIKE that reason, but it remains a reason nonetheless.

I tend not to like the redefinition of what is or is not a human being to justify murder due to the person being an inconvenience.

I understand that I am referring to the not-yet-born as both "a human being" and as "a person" because there is no evidence that supports the idea that we don't start out being either at the moment of conception.

Neuroscience is a long way from determining what sentience IS, exactly, but we have a pretty clear understanding of basic hardware requirements to support it. I absolutely agree that sentient foetuses should be given all the protections of any other person. I have seen no evidence, however, to suggest that such a thing exists, arguably at all, but certainly not at the early stages of pregnancy we're discussing here.

I do not see why sentience needs to be a requirement of either humanity or personhood.

If at any point an adult human being were to lose consciousness or self-awareness, that would not strip them of their humanity or personhood.

Therefore, why should either consciousness or self-awareness matter when determining if the not-yet-born qualify for full moral consideration?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you being serious? I literally just did that. You just directly replied to what I believe is the "clear definition" of "personhood."

I said,

"I contend that drawing the line of what or who is “a human” or “a person” at any point other than conception will result in a very blurry line that we could not necessary apply to other humans or persons." (Bold and italics added)

And you lose almost automatically when you take an extremist position. Now you want to claim that just a mass of cells is 'human'. That puts a huge burden of proof upon you to prove that a soul even exists, forget about when it becomes attached. You will lose the debate by default with that approach.

You're right. My mistake. I have the habit of assuming that I have these discussions with decent people.

And there goes another irony meter.

The idea that a human life being inconvenient to someone gives them the right to destroy it is evil. Plain and simple.

And there you go making the same old error again. You have yet to show that this is "human" life. You have to cheat and then you can pretend that it is the other side that is evil. This is still not fooling anyone.

I will never support the idea that a person has the right to kill you or anyone else simply for being an inconvenience.

Strawman fallacy, try again.

If you don't want a baby, don't get a pregnant. If you get pregnant and don't want the baby, put it up for adoption.

Oversimplification and assuming facts not in evidence.

I tend not to like the redefinition of what is or is not a human being to justify murder due to the person being an inconvenience.

No redefinition has occurred. Except perhaps by you. The Old Testament indicates that a fetus is not a person. And the false "inconvenience" claim again. You continually shoot yourself in the foot by arguing improperly.

I understand that I am referring to the not-yet-born as both "a human being" and as "a person" because there is no evidence that supports the idea that we don't start out being either at the moment of conception.

And you are making the same sort of error that someone claiming that until the fetus is all the way out of the uterus that it is not a person is making. Extremism is almost always a bad strategy.

[

I do not see why sentience needs to be a requirement of either humanity or personhood.[/quote]

it appears to be the most logical value to apply.

If at any point an adult human being were to lose consciousness or self-awareness, that would not strip them of their humanity or personhood.

That is a little different. Once one earns the status of being human that status is not easily removed. But it has been done. People that are brain dead are taken off of life support every day.

Therefore, why should either consciousness or self-awareness matter when determining if the not-yet-born qualify for full moral consideration?

Once again that is done quite often. Sometimes even when the parents oppose it:

Terri Schiavo case - Wikipedia

 

[Regiomontanus]

Are you being serious? I literally just did that. You just directly replied to what I believe is the "clear definition" of "personhood."

I said,

"I contend that drawing the line of what or who is “a human” or “a person” at any point other than conception will result in a very blurry line that we could not necessary apply to other humans or persons." (Bold and italics added)

You're right. My mistake. I have the habit of assuming that I have these discussions with decent people.

The idea that a human life being inconvenient to someone gives them the right to destroy it is evil. Plain and simple.

I will never support the idea that a person has the right to kill you or anyone else simply for being an inconvenience.

If you don't want a baby, don't get a pregnant. If you get pregnant and don't want the baby, put it up for adoption.

I tend not to like the redefinition of what is or is not a human being to justify murder due to the person being an inconvenience.

I understand that I am referring to the not-yet-born as both "a human being" and as "a person" because there is no evidence that supports the idea that we don't start out being either at the moment of conception.

I do not see why sentience needs to be a requirement of either humanity or personhood.

If at any point an adult human being were to lose consciousness or self-awareness, that would not strip them of their humanity or personhood.

Therefore, why should either consciousness or self-awareness matter when determining if the not-yet-born qualify for full moral consideration?

Hello.

Arguing about abortion on the internet - sure, that' not a waste of time

Seriously, those who are ardently pro abortion rights will *never* change their 'mind'. It takes a change of heart. I know because I was, for most of my life, just like those in this thread arguing against you. I just accept that and move on; only changing the law will get rid of (most) abortions.

Just sayin.

 

[Valjean]

Sorry for the delay.

I cannot agree with this if I am understanding it correctly.

All human (adj) babies are humans (n) as well as persons.

I contend that drawing the line of what or who is “a human” or “a person” at any point other than conception will result in a very blurry line that we could not necessary apply to other humans or persons.

I do not see any reason why the not-yet-born cannot be described as both a “baby” and a “person” other than for those political.

There are persons, from infants to the elderly, who rely on various methods of life support.

Is someone robbed of their “personhood” when they need an iron lung so they can breathe?

Does not the reaction of the not-yet-born to external stimuli, such as voices, music and movements denote sentience?

All of my children sucked on their thumbs in the womb. One of the ways they relieved their stress and sought comfort.

Are unconscious people no longer “sentient” or “persons”?

Whether or not you consider a foetus a “person” is irrelevant to your comparison of a “human foetus” to a “human kidney”.

Considering that a ‘human foetus’ does not share the exact DNA of either the mother or father, it would be impossible, in my opinion, to compare it to a kidney or some random growth.

Also, considering what you said about “personhood”, it correlates with what I said earlier about any line being drawn anywhere other than at conception being “blurry”.

If you consider an organism’s “independence” to be a key to it’s “personhood”, then there are many people in the world who you should no longer consider to be “persons.”

The word “independent” could be interpreted any number of ways and by your standard “personhood” can be stripped away depending on that interpretation.

This is why I claim that all humans (n) are “persons”, no matter which stage of their development they may currently be in since the moment they were conceived.

I thought that you believed that the not-yet-born were human beings. You said earlier in post # 239 that,

“A young foetus is 'human', but is not a person. It lacks the features associated with personhood, therefore, any claim moral consideration needs further support.”

Another example of where I thought you were claiming that a foetus was “a human” was in post # 288, when you said,

“"Human" I equate with Homo sapiens, it's a biological designation. We may say a 'human' kidney' or 'human foetus', for example.”

I understood that the reason you expressed kidney as ‘human’ kidney and a foetus as ‘human foetus’ was to share examples of both human (adj) and human (n).

I suppose I misunderstood your position?

Also, if I am understanding what you wrote correctly, how can you compare a foetus to a parasite?

Parasites are not of the same species as the host and they also reproduce while in the host body.

Would you consider chicks in unhatched eggs to also be parasites? They are incubating offspring, just like human foetus’ in the womb.

Or does the foetus need to be incubating inside the body of the mother in order for you to consider it a parasite?

If I understand what you said correctly, the foetus’ of mammals and other organisms that incubate inside another member of their species are “parasites”, while the foetus’ of birds, reptiles and other organisms that incubate their offspring by laying eggs would not be considered “parasites”?

We must have drawn the short-straw since we start off as “parasites” while members of other species can start off as simply offspring.

So, “incomplete” people aren’t human(n)?

A “person” with a physical or mental impairment can’t be described as “a” human”?

I hit my head too hard or lost a limb in an accident, therefore I also lose my claim to humanity?

This is not to mention all those people who can no longer be considered “free-living” due to illness, disability or age.

Once you are on life support, you lose your claim to being “a” human?

Once you are placed in an old-folks home, you’re not a human being anymore?

Once you take that welfare check you can’t be considered “free-living” anymore!

I know I have entered the realm of the absurd, but I’m just stressing my point of there being “blurry” lines after conception.

Yet, you can do all three to a human being. These terms are not mutually exclusive.

I see no reason outside of political motivation to not “err on the side of caution.”

Because if the not-yet-born are sentient, then they are a “person” and qualify for full moral consideration.

Why?

Some good points, PJ, but do you fully understand my concept of "human" vs "person?"

Personhood is a mental or psychological state. An LGM would be considered a person, for example, but would hardly be considered human.
"Human" is a biological status, Person, a psychic one.

 

[Prestor John]

Some good points, PJ, but do you fully understand my concept of "human" vs "person?"

Personhood is a mental or psychological state. An LGM would be considered a person, for example, but would hardly be considered human.
"Human" is a biological status, Person, a psychic one.

I do believe that I understand what you have shared.

According to what you have shared with me, a foetus may not be considered a "person" because they may not be fully conscious or self-aware.

However, when I apply this standard to all of humanity, then would it not stand to reason that people who never became fully conscious or self-aware, or lost these abilities, should also not be considered "persons"?

I don't believe you can maintain this standard of "personhood" across the board. It creates double standards.

 

[Prestor John]

And you lose almost automatically when you take an extremist position.

Who decides what is or is not an “extremist” position?

Who decided that someone who takes an “extremist position” (completely subjective term) will “lose almost automatically”?

By the way, something is either “automatic” or it is not. How does something be “almost automatic”?

Now you want to claim that just a mass of cells is 'human'.

You and I are technically “just a mass of cells”, but we are indeed ‘human’.

Any scientific test that can be used to determine the species of any cell, if it were performed on a human embryo/zygote/fetus/etc, would conclude that it is human.

The term “human” needs to be uniform and applied universally or it is meaningless.

No one stops being ‘human’ if they are malformed, disabled (mental/physical), abnormally small or very young.

That puts a huge burden of proof upon you to prove that a soul even exists, forget about when it becomes attached.

Whoa. Talk about your “extremist” position!

First, the existence of “souls” has not been proven, nor indeed can it ever be. That’s much like proving the existence of God.

Second, since I am making no claim to the existence of “souls”, there is no reason I would need to try to prove that they exist.

Third, why do you believe that the existence of an invisible and unprovable thing (the soul) is necessary to define what is or is not ‘human’?

Do you base the definition of all biological terms on the existence of invisible and unprovable things?

Fourth, when writing this post, how could you not see the blatant hypocrisy of jumping to this “extremist” position?

You are embarrassing yourself all over again.

You will lose the debate by default with that approach.

Which approach? Demanding that the existence of the “soul” be proven before we agree on what it means to be “human”?

I agree. You will lose the debate very quickly if you take such an “extremist” position!

And there goes another irony meter.

I’m not sure if you understand the what “irony” is.

Could you be a dear and explain what you meant with this comment?

And there you go making the same old error again. You have yet to show that this is "human" life.

Well, as I said numerous times in our discussion before in this thread (the one you ran away from), the onus is actually upon you to show that the not-yet-born are not “human.”

The entirety of human history has already established that all people everywhere are the product of pregnancy and incubation.

I can guarantee you (100%) that any test of the not-yet-born embryo/zygote/fetus/etc growing inside a human female womb will prove that it is comprised of unique human DNA.

We do not start out as footballs or some kind of goats. We start as human beings.

You have to cheat and then you can pretend that it is the other side that is evil. This is still not fooling anyone.

I have all history, logic and science on my side while you have…arguments of inconvenience and politically motivated opinion.

You are the one who has been fooled.

Strawman fallacy, try again.

You have shown a pattern of inaccurately accusing me and others of employing some logical fallacy, and then being unwilling (unable) to go back and actually explain your claim.

So, how about we start off here. Instead of just saying “Logical Fallacy”, how about you actually explain how what I said was a strawman.

Don’t worry. I don’t actually expect you to do that, since you have yet to do so in the past, even upon request.

I’m just thinking about what other lame excuse you’ll come up with this time to get out of backing up your claims.

Oversimplification and assuming facts not in evidence.

Please explain.

It is very easy not to get pregnant in this age of the world. If it looks like I’m “oversimplifying” it, that’s only because the issue is so very simple.

What facts am I assuming? That pregnancy leads to babies? That babies can be put up for adoption?

Please explain your claims for once.

No redefinition has occurred. Except perhaps by you. The Old Testament indicates that a fetus is not a person.

Your appeal to authority logical fallacy again.

Even if the Old Testament said what you claim, what would that prove? Science is based on what the Old Testament says?

And the false "inconvenience" claim again. You continually shoot yourself in the foot by arguing improperly.

The overwhelming majority of abortions performed in the world are due to the baby being an inconvenience.

Maybe educate yourself on a topic before commenting and looking foolish?

And you are making the same sort of error that someone claiming that until the fetus is all the way out of the uterus that it is not a person is making. Extremism is almost always a bad strategy.

Said the guy who wants the existence of souls proven before agreeing on what "human" is! Pffaw!

I digress.

Not at all. The point I am making is the exact opposite actually.

There are no double standards, hypocrisies, or “blurry” lines when it comes to what is or is not “alive”, “human” and a “person” when all three begin at conception.

It is an argument that is intellectually consistent and honest, which no one can claim the same for the other example you mentioned.

it appears to be the most logical value to apply.

Not at all. People who lose their sentience are still considered “human” and a “person”.

To say otherwise would be to admit to a double standard.

That is a little different.

Here comes the Hypocrisy Train! Double Standard a-hoy!

Once one earns the status of being human that status is not easily removed. But it has been done.

When has anyone’s “humanity” and/or “personhood” ever been removed?

Who has the authority to make such a determination?

People that are brain dead are taken off of life support every day.

Are you kidding? That is not a removal of their “humanity” or “personhood.”

Are we sure you’re not brain dead?

Once again that is done quite often. Sometimes even when the parents oppose it

L-O-L! I literally laughed out loud when I read this.

Terri Schiavo’s “humanity” or “personhood” were never questioned. And the years of legal cases proves that she still received full moral consideration, even though she was brain dead.

What was argued in support of pulling the plug was not a claim that she was no longer “human” or should no longer be considered a “person.”

Her husband argued that it would have been against her wishes to remain in a persistent vegetative state.

Unless you are going to try to argue that you somehow know that the wishes of all of the not-yet-born would be to not be born at all (aborted), the case of Terri Schiavo is completely irrelevant.

It’s a good thing that having an IQ in at least the double digits is not a requirement for “humanity” or “personhood” because you would have been stripped of both long ago if that were the case!

HA HA HA!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who decides what is or is not an “extremist” position?

Who decided that someone who takes an “extremist position” (completely subjective term) will “lose almost automatically”?

By the way, something is either “automatic” or it is not. How does something be “almost automatic”?

Wow, more amazing ignorance. Your position of human at conception is an extremist position. But since you have not been able to support any of your beliefs I suppose you feel that is as good of a place as anywhere to start. If you are going to lose, lost big, right?

You and I are technically “just a mass of cells”, but we are indeed ‘human’.

No, being "human" is an emergent property. I take it that you have heard the sum is greater than the parts? We are definitely more than just a heart two lungs, a brain, etc.

Any scientific test that can be used to determine the species of any cell, if it were performed on a human embryo/zygote/fetus/etc, would conclude that it is human.

The term “human” needs to be uniform and applied universally or it is meaningless.

No one stops being ‘human’ if they are malformed, disabled (mental/physical), abnormally small or very young.

And you are back to your failed equivocation fallacy.

Whoa. Talk about your “extremist” position!

First, the existence of “souls” has not been proven, nor indeed can it ever be. That’s much like proving the existence of God.

Second, since I am making no claim to the existence of “souls”, there is no reason I would need to try to prove that they exist.

Third, why do you believe that the existence of an invisible and unprovable thing (the soul) is necessary to define what is or is not ‘human’?

Do you base the definition of all biological terms on the existence of invisible and unprovable things?

Fourth, when writing this post, how could you not see the blatant hypocrisy of jumping to this “extremist” position?

You are embarrassing yourself all over again.
Which approach? Demanding that the existence of the “soul” be proven before we agree on what it means to be “human”?

I agree. You will lose the debate very quickly if you take such an “extremist” position!

Nope, but then again your incredible ignorance and ego are getting in the way again. I am not taking the position that a soul does not exist, your failed argument is based upon a soul existing. And not only that you have to go contrary to what the Bible teaches on when the soul is attached. But then you are so confused you do not even know what you are trying to debate.

Could you be a dear and explain what you meant with this comment?

I’m not sure if you understand the what “irony” is.

Is this more ignorance or is it a lie on your part?

And no, you can't be rude and ask for an explanation. In fact since you can't be honest or polite. I am ignoring the rest of this rather idiotic rant of yours.

Once again, if you can debate properly I will be glad to help you. As it is all that you have is a repeated equivocation error. You cannot support your claim about when a being becomes human and you lose do to that inability.

In case you forgot it is rude to excessively break up a post. It smacks of quote mining which is a form of lying.

Can you debate properly and politely? I can.

Well, as I said numerous times in our discussion before in this thread (the one you ran away from), the onus is actually upon you to show that the not-yet-born are not “human.”

Whoops, I almost missed this lie. There was no thread that I ran away from. And not the onus is not upon me. The current law agrees with me. That puts the burden of proof upon you. Until then you can rant in a dark corner but no one will take you seriously.

 

[Prestor John]

Wow, more amazing ignorance. Your position of human at conception is an extremist position.

According to you.

Can you ever be honest?

I gave you every opportunity to just man up and admit that it was only your opinion that my position was extremist.

Instead you slung out more insults and double-downed on your inconsistent and dishonest opinion.

But since you have not been able to support any of your beliefs I suppose you feel that is as good of a place as anywhere to start. If you are going to lose, lost big, right?

You have our positions reversed.

You have been unable to prove that the not-yet-born are not “alive”, “human” or a “person”.

Notice how you completely dropped the Terri Schiavo argument you presented when I blew it away?

All human history, logic and science confirm that the not-yet-born are living human persons.

No, being "human" is an emergent property. I take it that you have heard the sum is greater than the parts? We are definitely more than just a heart two lungs, a brain, etc.

The very same things could be said of the not-yet-born at any stage of their development.

Anything that can be applied to already-born humans can also be applied to not-yet-born humans.

An already-born human who becomes brain dead continues to remain a living human person, just as if a not-yet-born human who is not yet sentient remains a living human person.

Terri Schiavo died without her claim to humanity or personhood ever being questioned.

If you were intellectually consistent and honest you’d realize that the same standard should apply to the not-yet-born.

And you are back to your failed equivocation fallacy.

You have accused me on three separate occasions of employing an “equivocation fallacy” yet never being about to substantiate those accusations.

I went into more detail about your claims in post #331 (which I believe you decided to ignore).

The only way that you can claim that I employed this fallacy is if I claimed that “human” meant the same thing legally as it does biologically. I never made that claim.

What I have claimed is that the law is unable to define what is or is not “human” and every time it has tried has led to double-standards and travesty.

In post #296 you claimed that I was looking at only “the negative results” of the law trying to define what is or is not “human”, yet you ignored my request for you to provide a single “positive result” of the law trying to define what is or is not “human”.

Can you come up with one now? Can you name one “positive result” of the law defining what is or is not “human”?

What is or is not “human” is a question of biology and biology alone.

Just because I’m not willing to discuss the definition of “human” as a matter of law does not mean I am employing an equivocation fallacy.

Nope, but then again your incredible ignorance and ego are getting in the way again.

More ad hominem.

I am not taking the position that a soul does not exist, your failed argument is based upon a soul existing.

I never claimed that you were taking the position that the soul does not exist. Why do you think I did?

Where in my argument did I ever mention the human “soul” in any way? Please explain how my argument is “based upon a soul existing”, when I never argued for the existence of the human “soul”.

If you can’t quote me arguing for the existence of the human “soul” then you can’t claim that I made that argument. Remember that advice you gave me about quoting your opponent?

You prove yourself to be a hypocrite every time you operate against that advice.

You are attempting to put words in my mouth. You are accusing me of making claims I never did.

That is also known as a strawman. Which is one of your favorite logical fallacies that you like to use.

And not only that you have to go contrary to what the Bible teaches on when the soul is attached.

This is your second favorite logical fallacy. An appeal to authority. It is ineffective and unconvincing.

You also keep making claims about the Bible’s stance on this issue without ever referencing or quoting from the Bible. Why is that?

However, I do think it is interesting to mention that the prophet Jeremiah claimed that the Lord told him that He “knew” him before he was formed in the belly and had also “sanctified” and “ordained” him to be a prophet before he came out of the womb (Jeremiah 1:5).

The account of Luke also mentioned that when the pregnant (with Jesus) Mary went to visit her pregnant (with John the Baptist) cousin Elisabeth that the babe within Elisabeth “leaped in her womb” when she heard Mary’s “salutation” (Luke 1:41) and Elizabeth explained that the babe had leapt “for joy” when she heard Mary (Luke 1:44).

Even though I am not claiming that the Bible should be used as an authority on this subject (there is no need for me to use it considering that all human history, logic and science are on my side), it seems that the Bible supports the idea that the human “soul” (if it exists) enters into the not-yet-born before their physical bodies are “formed” at all.

But then you are so confused you do not even know what you are trying to debate.

You are the only one confused here, because you are inconsistent and dishonest.

I have always argued that science determines what is or is not “human” and that “human life” and “personhood” begin at conception.

Not only that, but all of human history proves, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that all people everywhere are the product of pregnancy.

Logic also dictates that there is no reason to assume that the combination of a human sperm and a human ovum would create anything other than a human zygote/embryo/fetus.

Any limitations you would place on the “life”, “humanity” or “personhood” of the not-yet-born you would have to also place on the already-born if you wanted to remain intellectually consistent and honest.

Terri Schiavo was both a "human" and a "person" while her brain was dead.

Is this more ignorance or is it a lie on your part?

Could you please explain why it would need to be one or the other and not some other option?

And no, you can't be rude and ask for an explanation.

You believe that asking for explanations is “rude”?

Maybe you live on a different planet?

In fact since you can't be honest or polite. I am ignoring the rest of this rather idiotic rant of yours.

Once again, if you can debate properly I will be glad to help you. As it is all that you have is a repeated equivocation error. You cannot support your claim about when a being becomes human and you lose do to that inability.

I called it!

I said in my last post (#357), “So, how about we start off here. Instead of just saying “Logical Fallacy”, how about you actually explain how what I said was a strawman.

Don’t worry. I don’t actually expect you to do that, since you have yet to do so in the past, even upon request.

I’m just thinking about what other lame excuse you’ll come up with this time to get out of backing up your claims.”

So this time your excuses for ignoring my posts and running away is because I asked you to explain your “irony meter” comment, you can’t substantiate your claim that I employed an “equivocation fallacy” and you can’t deny the historical, logical and scientific evidence that supports the fact that human life begins at conception?

So no one is allowed to question you or ask you to explain or take responsibility for what you say?

That is not a “proper debate”. It is juvenile, inconsistent, hypocritical, dishonest and irresponsible.

In case you forgot it is rude to excessively break up a post.

I remember you making that claim, but being unable to support it with anything other than your opinion.

It smacks of quote mining which is a form of lying.

You would first need to provide an example of me quoting you out of context before accusing me of quote mining.

Can you debate properly and politely? I can.

No, you can’t.

Everyone who reads this discussion (I applaud anyone willing to) has seen plenty of examples of you being unable to debate or be polite.

Whoops, I almost missed this lie. There was no thread that I ran away from. And not the onus is not upon me. The current law agrees with me. That puts the burden of proof upon you. Until then you can rant in a dark corner but no one will take you seriously.

I suppose you would have fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War because the law of that time supported the owning of slaves?

The law was wrong to label Africans “less than” other races to justify their enslavement.

The fact that laws like these are subject to change (while what is or is not “human” never changes) proves that it is impossible for the law to make that determination.

Everything is on my side, while all you have is the opinion of those who make arguments of convenience motivated by a political agenda.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to you.

Can you ever be honest?

I gave you every opportunity to just man up and admit that it was only your opinion that my position was extremist.

Instead you slung out more insults and double-downed on your inconsistent and dishonest opinion.

You have our positions reversed.

You have been unable to prove that the not-yet-born are not “alive”, “human” or a “person”.

Notice how you completely dropped the Terri Schiavo argument you presented when I blew it away?

All human history, logic and science confirm that the not-yet-born are living human persons.

The very same things could be said of the not-yet-born at any stage of their development.

Anything that can be applied to already-born humans can also be applied to not-yet-born humans.

An already-born human who becomes brain dead continues to remain a living human person, just as if a not-yet-born human who is not yet sentient remains a living human person.

Terri Schiavo died without her claim to humanity or personhood ever being questioned.

If you were intellectually consistent and honest you’d realize that the same standard should apply to the not-yet-born.

You have accused me on three separate occasions of employing an “equivocation fallacy” yet never being about to substantiate those accusations.

I went into more detail about your claims in post #331 (which I believe you decided to ignore).

The only way that you can claim that I employed this fallacy is if I claimed that “human” meant the same thing legally as it does biologically. I never made that claim.

What I have claimed is that the law is unable to define what is or is not “human” and every time it has tried has led to double-standards and travesty.

In post #296 you claimed that I was looking at only “the negative results” of the law trying to define what is or is not “human”, yet you ignored my request for you to provide a single “positive result” of the law trying to define what is or is not “human”.

Can you come up with one now? Can you name one “positive result” of the law defining what is or is not “human”?

What is or is not “human” is a question of biology and biology alone.

Just because I’m not willing to discuss the definition of “human” as a matter of law does not mean I am employing an equivocation fallacy.

More ad hominem.

I never claimed that you were taking the position that the soul does not exist. Why do you think I did?

Where in my argument did I ever mention the human “soul” in any way? Please explain how my argument is “based upon a soul existing”, when I never argued for the existence of the human “soul”.

If you can’t quote me arguing for the existence of the human “soul” then you can’t claim that I made that argument. Remember that advice you gave me about quoting your opponent?

You prove yourself to be a hypocrite every time you operate against that advice.

You are attempting to put words in my mouth. You are accusing me of making claims I never did.

That is also known as a strawman. Which is one of your favorite logical fallacies that you like to use.

This is your second favorite logical fallacy. An appeal to authority. It is ineffective and unconvincing.

You also keep making claims about the Bible’s stance on this issue without ever referencing or quoting from the Bible. Why is that?

However, I do think it is interesting to mention that the prophet Jeremiah claimed that the Lord told him that He “knew” him before he was formed in the belly and had also “sanctified” and “ordained” him to be a prophet before he came out of the womb (Jeremiah 1:5).

The account of Luke also mentioned that when the pregnant (with Jesus) Mary went to visit her pregnant (with John the Baptist) cousin Elisabeth that the babe within Elisabeth “leaped in her womb” when she heard Mary’s “salutation” (Luke 1:41) and Elizabeth explained that the babe had leapt “for joy” when she heard Mary (Luke 1:44).

Even though I am not claiming that the Bible should be used as an authority on this subject (there is no need for me to use it considering that all human history, logic and science are on my side), it seems that the Bible supports the idea that the human “soul” (if it exists) enters into the not-yet-born before their physical bodies are “formed” at all.

You are the only one confused here, because you are inconsistent and dishonest.

I have always argued that science determines what is or is not “human” and that “human life” and “personhood” begin at conception.

Not only that, but all of human history proves, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that all people everywhere are the product of pregnancy.

Logic also dictates that there is no reason to assume that the combination of a human sperm and a human ovum would create anything other than a human zygote/embryo/fetus.

Any limitations you would place on the “life”, “humanity” or “personhood” of the not-yet-born you would have to also place on the already-born if you wanted to remain intellectually consistent and honest.

Terri Schiavo was both a "human" and a "person" while her brain was dead.

Could you please explain why it would need to be one or the other and not some other option?

You believe that asking for explanations is “rude”?

Maybe you live on a different planet?

I called it!

I said in my last post (#357), “So, how about we start off here. Instead of just saying “Logical Fallacy”, how about you actually explain how what I said was a strawman.

Don’t worry. I don’t actually expect you to do that, since you have yet to do so in the past, even upon request.

I’m just thinking about what other lame excuse you’ll come up with this time to get out of backing up your claims.”

So this time your excuses for ignoring my posts and running away is because I asked you to explain your “irony meter” comment, you can’t substantiate your claim that I employed an “equivocation fallacy” and you can’t deny the historical, logical and scientific evidence that supports the fact that human life begins at conception?

So no one is allowed to question you or ask you to explain or take responsibility for what you say?

That is not a “proper debate”. It is juvenile, inconsistent, hypocritical, dishonest and irresponsible.

I remember you making that claim, but being unable to support it with anything other than your opinion.

You would first need to provide an example of me quoting you out of context before accusing me of quote mining.

No, you can’t.

Everyone who reads this discussion (I applaud anyone willing to) has seen plenty of examples of you being unable to debate or be polite.

I suppose you would have fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War because the law of that time supported the owning of slaves?

The law was wrong to label Africans “less than” other races to justify their enslavement.

The fact that laws like these are subject to change (while what is or is not “human” never changes) proves that it is impossible for the law to make that determination.

Everything is on my side, while all you have is the opinion of those who make arguments of convenience motivated by a political agenda.

You bore me. So far you have not been able to debate properly and continually perform the same logical errors.

Can you be honest? To date you have failed. Can you avoid logical fallacies? And please, don't accuse others of ad hominem. You do not appear to understand the concept.