[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
What are the unborn, from the moment of conception Bismark?
[/quote]
A zygote of course.
[/quote]
You tell em Bismark, just like them Negros, a zygote is less than a real person. They’re just property. [/quote]
Scientifically, I’m correct.
Mote histrionic and inaccurate references to slavery, genocide, and holocaust.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Some forms of birth control (i.e., the ones that are insulated from user error) have a very strong reductive effect on abortion:
Which brings us back around to the enormous stupidity of kneedragger, an anti-abortion crusader if ever there was one, hawking one of the riskiest possible birth control methods. If you don’t want people to terminate pregnancies, what kind of fatuous contortionism pits you against birth control methods with near-zero failure rates? Ah, that’s right.[/quote]
This is what I attempted to convey in an earlier post. Why attempt to usurp Roe v. Wade’s decision that the right to choose abortion (before the third trimester of pregnancy) is “fundamental” in lieu of nipping abortion in the bud by advocating for improved sexual education and subsidized contraception? [/quote]
Umm, because to not “usurp” RvW means you agree with them that the wholesale slaughter of innocent life is the “fundamental” right of all people.
Again, it isn’t a surprise democrats love abortion. They love killing, and enslaving people who don’t look like they want them to.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Mote histrionic and inaccurate references to slavery, genocide, and holocaust. [/quote]
You calling something inaccurate doesn’t make it so.
This is literally the only topic I’ve ever seen you struggle so hard to still come up so flat on this board. I’m literally flabbergasted that you continue to flounder so bad in abortion threads.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The personhood thing is not as simple as many think.
[/quote]
Yes it actually is. It’s a yes or no answer, stage of development doesn’t matter.
For example Biz is so busy trying to semantic and fallacy his way around the pro-abort toilet bowl he doesn’t even notice he’s making the same stupid ass arguments pittbull is, but with an exponentially better vocabulary.
However the cleverness of the rest of your post is not lost. You are the furthest from a “if it’s legal it is okay” type so, well played.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
What are the unborn, from the moment of conception Bismark?
[/quote]
A zygote of course.
[/quote]
You tell em Bismark, just like them Negros, a zygote is less than a real person. They’re just property. [/quote]
Scientifically, I’m correct. [/quote]
You sure are
[quote]
Mote histrionic and inaccurate references to slavery, genocide, and holocaust. [/quote]
Yes a massa, what ever you say massa.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The personhood thing is not as simple as many think.
[/quote]
Yes it actually is. It’s a yes or no answer, stage of development doesn’t matter.
For example Biz is so busy trying to semantic and fallacy his way around the pro-abort toilet bowl he doesn’t even notice he’s making the same stupid ass arguments pittbull is, but with an exponentially better vocabulary.
However the cleverness of the rest of your post is not lost. You are the furthest from a “if it’s legal it is okay” type so, well played. [/quote]
Science hasn’t yet defined personhood. A cell produced by the union of two gametes is a person? By what criteria? Heartbeat? Brainwaves? Viability? Consciousness? None of the above? Name my semantics. Name my fallacies. The argument of the self-appointed pro-life side in this thread has been based more on emotions than logic; on feelings more than facts.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Some forms of birth control (i.e., the ones that are insulated from user error) have a very strong reductive effect on abortion:
Which brings us back around to the enormous stupidity of kneedragger, an anti-abortion crusader if ever there was one, hawking one of the riskiest possible birth control methods. If you don’t want people to terminate pregnancies, what kind of fatuous contortionism pits you against birth control methods with near-zero failure rates? Ah, that’s right.[/quote]
This is what I attempted to convey in an earlier post. Why attempt to usurp Roe v. Wade’s decision that the right to choose abortion (before the third trimester of pregnancy) is “fundamental” in lieu of nipping abortion in the bud by advocating for improved sexual education and subsidized contraception? [/quote]
Umm, because to not “usurp” RvW means you agree with them that the wholesale slaughter of innocent life is the “fundamental” right of all people.
Again, it isn’t a surprise democrats love abortion. They love killing, and enslaving people who don’t look like they want them to. [/quote]
Like it or not, it’s the law of the land, and the so-called pro-life movement would be better served by advocating for improved sex education and subsidized birth control to address the demand side of abortion rather than charging a castle with little more than sharpened sticks.
Wholesale slaughter? Are you capable of discussing this subject objectively? Again, abortion is an individual medical decision. There exists no cabal that benefits from the termination of pregnancies.
I’m not a Democrat, and there are more than a few Republican “pro-aborts”. No one here is proclaiming their “love” for abortion. I see it as a regretable but fundamental medical right. But hey, keep tilting at windmills.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Mote histrionic and inaccurate references to slavery, genocide, and holocaust. [/quote]
You calling something inaccurate doesn’t make it so.
This is literally the only topic I’ve ever seen you struggle so hard to still come up so flat on this board. I’m literally flabbergasted that you continue to flounder so bad in abortion threads. [/quote]
Abortion is an individual medical decision. It isn’t an institution. It isn’t systemic. There exists no cabal that is dedicated to the termination of pregnancies.
By your clearly objective standards?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
What are the unborn, from the moment of conception Bismark?
[/quote]
A zygote of course.
[/quote]
You tell em Bismark, just like them Negros, a zygote is less than a real person. They’re just property. [/quote]
Scientifically, I’m correct. [/quote]
You sure are
[quote]
Mote histrionic and inaccurate references to slavery, genocide, and holocaust. [/quote]
Yes a massa, what ever you say massa. [/quote]
Go ahead and prove that a zygote is a “real person”. Then do the same for an embryo. Than a fetus up until consistent brain activity.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This is literally the only topic I’ve ever seen you struggle so hard to still come up so flat on this board. I’m literally flabbergasted that you continue to flounder so bad in abortion threads. [/quote]
If he’s smart enough he’ll recognize the futility of his endeavor. It really is an indefensible position.
He’s Custer surveying the tipis on the Little Bighorn and thinking he can pull this off.[/quote]
Abortion is here to stay, like it or not. If you want to play the role of the scorched earth ideologue, it’s your right to do so. You’re wasting time and effort trying to affect the supply side of the practice. Demand, on the other hand, is rather malleable. The last ten years have shown as much.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The personhood thing is not as simple as many think.
If a zygote/early embryo is a person, it is a person who cannot legally die.
All fifty states consider two general, measurable phenomena in determining the death of a person: irreversible cessation of heart activity, and irreversible cessation of brain activity.
The silence of fetal heart and brain function is, of course, reversible: under normal circumstances, both will be measurable at a particular gestational stage. However, until something has begun, it cannot cease. A zygote/early embryo does not have, and has not since its earliest moment of existence had, either heart or brain activity, which is to say that it is logically impossible for a zygote/early embryo to undergo cessation of heart/brain activity – and, thus, to legally die. A thing that cannot be said to have died cannot be said to have been killed, in which case the earliest abortions kill no people, in which case they ought to be legal.[/quote]
This cessation of life angle has already been handled in the previous thread. It’s not comparable and cannot (honestly) intellectually be used to handle the issue of when personhood begins. Go back and look it up.
[/quote]
A fetus only develops its cerebral cortex, the part of the brain which regulates thought and consciousness at 24 weeks, well after the limit for abortions. Before 24 weeks, its brain only emits electrical signals, not brain waves which indicate thought. We are our brains. It isn’t unreasonable to draw the line for personhood (and thus abortions) at brain waves.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
What are the unborn, from the moment of conception Bismark?
[/quote]
A zygote of course.
[/quote]
You tell em Bismark, just like them Negros, a zygote is less than a real person. They’re just property. [/quote]
Scientifically, I’m correct. [/quote]
You sure are
[quote]
Mote histrionic and inaccurate references to slavery, genocide, and holocaust. [/quote]
Yes a massa, what ever you say massa. [/quote]
Go ahead and prove that a zygote is a “real person”. Then do the same for an embryo. Than a fetus up until consistent brain activity.[/quote]
A zygote is just as a real a person as you and I. It is simply at a different stage of development. It is a distinct individual human life just like you and I. You have just chosen to use semantics, much like slave owners, to treat that unqiue individual life as property.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
If a zygote/early embryo is a person, it is a person who cannot legally die.
[/quote]
But he/she surely has the the genesis, and the potential, to live – just like you did at that age.
[/quote]
Sure, but it isn’t what it has the potential to be – it is only what it is. It is for this reason that, if I kill a fourteen-year-old boy, I am killing a young person, not the old man that he has the potential to become.
More importantly, your objection doesn’t bear on or alter the argument I laid out. It is the dogmatically pro-life contingent that claims that even at the moment of conception there exists a legal person. That absurd inconsistencies and contradictions arise from this is the problem of the dogmatically pro-life – and certainly nobody else.
Beans is right – as he so often is – that I don’t consider what is legal to coincide exactly with what is moral. There are, in fact, many, many abortions that will be performed today which, though legal, I believe to be immoral (and would make illegal if given the opportunity). This is why I once said I’d rather have you in charge of abortion law than some third-wave feminist of the Jessica Valenti stripe – because, though I disagree with you in some areas, I’d rather have some abortions that result in no dead people be illegal than some abortions that definitely result in dead people be legal.
But this present question is not just one of technical legality. The legal death of a person is contingent upon medical/scientific definitions, and these, though increasingly nuanced, hinge on and agree with the language I’ve used. To take one of many examples, the text of the Uniform Determination of Death Act was shaped in conference with the American Medical Association. In other words, it is not only law that calls a person’s death the irreversible cessation of heart/brain activity – it is science. And here conservatives have an actual problem, because, as I’ve shown, it is logically impossible for something that has never exhibited X to undergo cessation of X, and therefore it is logically impossible for an early embryo to be a dead person, and therefore it is logically impossible for the abortion of an early embryo to result in the killing of a person, and therefore the pro-life argument breaks down.
Note that this is logical impossibility, not “unlikeliness” or some other kind of surmountable obstacle. Furthermore, I assure you that the progression is valid (anyone who wants to show otherwise is free to try).
And this isn’t just sophistry. I actually believe this. Of course I do – I’ve seen more people die than I’d have preferred. I’ve looked at it and understood and been told by doctors what it means. It doesn’t mean that every cell ceases to produce and utilize energy – that won’t happen for 17+ days. It doesn’t mean that the spleen stops working or that the hand no longer moves. It means that the electrical activity of the heart and, more importantly, the brain – the engines of a living person, without which there is and never has been one – have gone away and cannot return. This is medically true and it is intuitively true, and it poses a problem that pro-life people, sympathetic though I am to their cause, seem always to stumble over.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Two humans at the egg and sperm stage, or a human egg and a human sperm?[/quote]
I seriously hope you, as a college educated individual, didn’t think this comparison would even remotely apt.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But this present question is not just one of technical legality. The legal death of a person is contingent upon medical/scientific definitions, and these, though increasingly nuanced, hinge on and agree with the language I’ve used. To take one of many examples, the text of the Uniform Determination of Death Act was shaped in conference with the American Medical Association. In other words, it is not only law that calls a person’s death the irreversible cessation of heart/brain activity – it is science. And here conservatives have an actual problem, because, as I’ve shown, it is logically impossible for something that has never exhibited X to undergo cessation of X, and therefore it is logically impossible for an early embryo to be a dead person, and therefore it is logically impossible for the abortion of an early embryo to result in the killing of a person, and therefore the pro-life argument breaks down.[/quote]
I underlined the portion of your post that I don’t follow. What I don’t follow specifically is why it makes sense to say life begins at the inverse of death? The difference to me is apparent, brain function has not yet commenced for the newly formed organism, due to the stage of development, but this is not irreversible. Brain function is in fact inevitable the vast majority of the time.
The way I see it is that at conception a new unique life is created. It will, the vast majority of the time, ultimately develop into a fully developed person. If left untouched, again the vast majority of the time, that living organism will develop all functions including brain wave function. The cessation of brain function, ie clinic death, on the other hand marks the end of development. Cells no longer replicate, they begin to die off, organs shut down, etc…
On the one hand you have a new living organism that is developing towards full function. On the other hand you have an organism whose development has ceased. In short, it makes sense to mark death at brain wave cessation as cells will no longer replicate/develop, but I do not think it makes sense to say life begins at the opposite end of the spectrum (when brain function begins) simply because it’s an easy answer to a complex situation. Further, I don’t agree with the idea that development, in this case, is irrelevant. Left untouched a zygote not only has the potential, but will the vast majority of the time, become that 14 year old and God willing that old man, both of which are protected by the law.
Why do you think, or do you think, life should not be protected at conception?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
What are the unborn, from the moment of conception Bismark?
[/quote]
A zygote of course.
[/quote]
You tell em Bismark, just like them Negros, a zygote is less than a real person. They’re just property. [/quote]
Scientifically, I’m correct. [/quote]
You sure are
A person with neither a heart not a functioning brain, the taproots of personhood? If a Zygote fails to become a blastocyst and implant on the uterus wall (perhaps via the so-called morning after pill), did a murder akin shooting an elementary school child occur? How does one murder a eukaryotic cell?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Two humans at the egg and sperm stage, or a human egg and a human sperm?[/quote]
I seriously hope you, as a college educated individual, didn’t think this comparison would even remotely apt.[/quote]
I didn’t jump on the “unfertilized chicken egg” is a chicken train.