Planned Parenthood II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[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]

Don’t be retarded Bismark, it’s unbecoming.
[/quote]

An insult instead of a reasoned response. Color me surprised. If a woman takes the morning after pill and prevents a eukaryotic zygote from continuing, has she committed murder (that is, the unlawful and premeditated killing of another person)? Is the pharmacy that she procured it from an accomplice to murder? Is she the moral and legal equivalent of someone who murders an elementary school student? [/quote]

I don’t give reasoned responses to non-sense. That’s why folks like Pitt are on ignore. [/quote]

How is it nonsense? You claim that a zygote is a “real person just like you or me”. I’m asking if you believe that the morning after pill taken after fettilization is murder and equivalent to the unambiguous murder of an elementary school student. Pretty straightforward. [/quote]

Yes, they are basically the same thing and should be treated as such under the law.[/quote]

Bis and those on Team Genocide are coming from “out of sight, out of mind” territory. Because the prenatal child is hidden in the womb and the elementary student is plainly visible they can rationalize it away.[/quote]

Not quite. I draw the line at 24 weeks - when brain waves begin. The fetus will still be out of sight for a while at the point.

If aborting an embryo or embryo to be is murder as all the pro-lifers in this thread assert that it is, and abortion eventually goes the way of its “relative” slavery, will not every women who has has an abortion and every doctor who has performed one be on the hook for murder? After all, the crime has no statute of limitations. You’re ok with that outcome? You’re ok with one in three women being sought on murder charges? Why about their supportive partners or friends? Accomplices to murder?

162

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The act of murder is at most a temporary act against a person then. In fact, it might only last for the pull of trigger. Afterwards, the person no longer exists to be harmed. Life in prison (heck even years) seems incredibly lopsided in such a case. [/quote]

Not to me it doesn’t. Anyway, murder of course has lasting effects, but my argument is unchanged by this fact. My argument is this: in order for a murder to take place, a person must die. This is a legal fact. Do you deny it?[/quote]

No, I do not. For one, “a person must die” is not precise enough, obviously. Second, you haven’t convinced me as to why I should have a special label for a death, in the first place. Again, a “murderer” does not rob me of who I am the second before he pulls the trigger. Those moments are already gone and out of existence. I agree with my argument, a murder takes place when an innocent human life is deliberately robbed of it’s otherwise future. “Person” is a fiction we tell ourselves to feel better about who we murder. About the futures we stamp out.
[/quote]

We are descending into absurdity. You are claiming that a murder can take place without a person’s having died. This is demonstrably not true:

Person/human being, I will use them interchangeably. One kills another: this is murder in its most fundamental essence. I will consider the above proved and resolved, because it is. The definition I’ll use for murder, from now on, is from the above link:

“Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being.”

We will set “unlawfully” aside, because what is at issue here is not what the law is, but what it ought to be (i.e., abortion is presently lawful, but not necessarily moral). So we have “murder occurs when one human being kills another human being,” keeping in mind that we are not discussing self-defense or any other such out.

Now, in order for us to say that a human being has been killed, we must say that a human being has died. Do you agree with this?

I’m going to jump ahead: you do agree with it. I know that you do because I know that you aren’t insane, and the above is necessarily true.

Moving forward, in order for us to say that a human being has died, we must say that the human being has undergone irreversible cessation of heart/brain activity. This is medical fact, accepted and established (as are so many other other medical facts to which the pro-life argument appeals – again, a position cannot rely on special pleading).

By logical necessity, a human being cannot be said to have died without having undergone irreversible cessation of heart/brain activity, the latter being the medical definition of the former.

An embryo cannot be said to have undergone irreversible cessation of heart/brain activity, because what has not happened has not ceased (this, too, is logically necessary).

Therefore, an embryo cannot be said to be a human being that has died, which in turn entails the impossibility of a murder having happened.

Please, if you’re going to refute any of this, pick it out and refute it specifically. I only want to do this if we do it precisely.[/quote]

Ah, but see, here’s your problem. You want to cling to a legal fiction. “Person.” Legal fictions, this insidious one especially, have nodded at many a killing. Such as, again, the murder of many an African. You see that’s why there are individuals like, Push, counting, and others. Because we are here to point out how absurd this legal fiction is. You’re holding up a legal fiction to prove me wrong. But I’ve never said that abortion IS defined by the US a murder. On the contrary, I am demonstrating why the US is wrong not TO.

163

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The act of murder is at most a temporary act against a person then. In fact, it might only last for the pull of trigger. Afterwards, the person no longer exists to be harmed. Life in prison (heck even years) seems incredibly lopsided in such a case. [/quote]

Not to me it doesn’t. Anyway, murder of course has lasting effects, but my argument is unchanged by this fact. My argument is this: in order for a murder to take place, a person must die. This is a legal fact. Do you deny it?[/quote]

No, I do not. For one, “a person must die” is not precise enough, obviously. Second, you haven’t convinced me as to why I should have a special label for a death, in the first place. Again, a “murderer” does not rob me of who I am the second before he pulls the trigger. Those moments are already gone and out of existence. I agree with my argument, a murder takes place when an innocent human life is deliberately robbed of it’s otherwise future. “Person” is a fiction we tell ourselves to feel better about who we murder. About the futures we stamp out.
[/quote]

We are descending into absurdity. You are claiming that a murder can take place without a person’s having died. This is demonstrably not true:

Person/human being, I will use them interchangeably. One kills another: this is murder in its most fundamental essence. I will consider the above proved and resolved, because it is. The definition I’ll use for murder, from now on, is from the above link:

“Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being.”

We will set “unlawfully” aside, because what is at issue here is not what the law is, but what it ought to be (i.e., abortion is presently lawful, but not necessarily moral). So we have “murder occurs when one human being kills another human being,” keeping in mind that we are not discussing self-defense or any other such out.

Now, in order for us to say that a human being has been killed, we must say that a human being has died. Do you agree with this?

I’m going to jump ahead: you do agree with it. I know that you do because I know that you aren’t insane, and the above is necessarily true.

Moving forward, in order for us to say that a human being has died, we must say that the human being has undergone irreversible cessation of heart/brain activity. This is medical fact, accepted and established (as are so many other other medical facts to which the pro-life argument appeals – again, a position cannot rely on special pleading).

By logical necessity, a human being cannot be said to have died without having undergone irreversible cessation of heart/brain activity, the latter being the medical definition of the former.

An embryo cannot be said to have undergone irreversible cessation of heart/brain activity, because what has not happened has not ceased (this, too, is logically necessary).

Therefore, an embryo cannot be said to be a human being that has died, which in turn entails the impossibility of a murder having happened.

Please, if you’re going to refute any of this, pick it out and refute it specifically. I only want to do this if we do it precisely.[/quote]

Ah, but see, here’s your problem. You want to cling to a legal fiction. “Person.” Legal fictions, this insidious one especially, have nodded at many a killing. Such as, again, the murder of many an African. You see that’s why there are individuals like, Push, counting, and others. Because we are here to point out how absurd this legal fiction is. You’re holding up a legal fiction to prove me wrong. But I’ve never said that abortion IS defined by the US a murder. On the contrary, I am demonstrating why the US is wrong not TO. [/quote]

No, what is at issue is whether or not the embryo is a person. I am not assuming anything one way or another.

Look at it another way: let’s assume that an embryo is a person simpliciter. Now give the logical progression a try. Is it valid and sound, or not?

164

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If someone were to deliberately end the life of one of my family members right this second, what have I lost smh? What is there for me to grieve? What rage? My family right before that instant was already gone and lost to history. Nothing but memories. And those still exist. So what is then that we are missing?[/quote]

You’ve lost your family member. He has died and won’t return. More specifically and with medical precision, your family member has undergone irreversible cessation of heart/brain activity. This is what death is, and in it is entailed all of the finality and loss. See my post above.[/quote]

I had already lost my family member, if I borrow your earlier arguments, that life isn’t a continuous chain. His/her history is just that, history, which already no longer existed in this present. The only missing is the second after, and the one after that.

Take note, you move to make note of the cessation of brain activity to prove…something. But what? The only thing done is shown the cessation of brain activity. What exactly is the concern with the the fact the brain is no longer, or will never be, able to function (or, to be allowed to begin functioning)? What is it smh? Why would we want the brain to continue to function? For the next seconds. The potentiality. And THAT is why it’s so filthy.

165

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

No, what is at issue is whether or not the embryo is a person. [/quote]

If you’re going to rely on “person” it can defined over and over again. And then redefined some more. As it has been to enslave and yes, MURDER, large groups of people. It’s a dead argument. And I don’t know why you continue to engage me from that front, as I’m obviously arguing AGAINST the present ink on the paper. I’m not arguing that he US PROTECTS the lives of the unborn. I am arguing that is fails to do so.

167

I mean, holy moly. You’re arguing as if murder is one of two things at two different points. A crime of littering, where a messy human corpse is left behind. Which really doesn’t add to much when you consider all the yucky meat bags in total, from whatever cause.

Or,

A cessation of brain activities…Which is in effect an argument of a wrong against the future second where the next second of brain activity would even have any meaning. Potentiality.

168

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The act of murder is at most a temporary act against a person then. In fact, it might only last for the pull of trigger. Afterwards, the person no longer exists to be harmed. Life in prison (heck even years) seems incredibly lopsided in such a case. [/quote]

Not to me it doesn’t. Anyway, murder of course has lasting effects, but my argument is unchanged by this fact. My argument is this: in order for a murder to take place, a person must die. This is a legal fact. Do you deny it?[/quote]

No, I do not. For one, “a person must die” is not precise enough, obviously. Second, you haven’t convinced me as to why I should have a special label for a death, in the first place. Again, a “murderer” does not rob me of who I am the second before he pulls the trigger. Those moments are already gone and out of existence. I agree with my argument, a murder takes place when an innocent human life is deliberately robbed of it’s otherwise future. “Person” is a fiction we tell ourselves to feel better about who we murder. About the futures we stamp out.
[/quote]

We are descending into absurdity. You are claiming that a murder can take place without a person’s having died. This is demonstrably not true:

Person/human being, I will use them interchangeably. One kills another: this is murder in its most fundamental essence. I will consider the above proved and resolved, because it is. The definition I’ll use for murder, from now on, is from the above link:

“Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being.”

We will set “unlawfully” aside, because what is at issue here is not what the law is, but what it ought to be (i.e., abortion is presently lawful, but not necessarily moral). So we have “murder occurs when one human being kills another human being,” keeping in mind that we are not discussing self-defense or any other such out.

Now, in order for us to say that a human being has been killed, we must say that a human being has died. Do you agree with this?

I’m going to jump ahead: you do agree with it. I know that you do because I know that you aren’t insane, and the above is necessarily true.

Moving forward, in order for us to say that a human being has died, we must say that the human being has undergone irreversible cessation of heart/brain activity. This is medical fact, accepted and established (as are so many other other medical facts to which the pro-life argument appeals – again, a position cannot rely on special pleading).

By logical necessity, a human being cannot be said to have died without having undergone irreversible cessation of heart/brain activity, the latter being the medical definition of the former.

An embryo cannot be said to have undergone irreversible cessation of heart/brain activity, because what has not happened has not ceased (this, too, is logically necessary).

Therefore, an embryo cannot be said to be a human being that has died, which in turn entails the impossibility of a murder having happened.

Please, if you’re going to refute any of this, pick it out and refute it specifically. I only want to do this if we do it precisely.[/quote]

Ah, but see, here’s your problem. You want to cling to a legal fiction. “Person.” Legal fictions, this insidious one especially, have nodded at many a killing. Such as, again, the murder of many an African. You see that’s why there are individuals like, Push, counting, and others. Because we are here to point out how absurd this legal fiction is. You’re holding up a legal fiction to prove me wrong. But I’ve never said that abortion IS defined by the US a murder. On the contrary, I am demonstrating why the US is wrong not TO. [/quote]

No, what is at issue is whether or not the embryo is a person. I am not assuming anything one way or another.

Look at it another way: let’s assume that an embryo is a person simpliciter. Now give the logical progression a try. Is it valid and sound, or not?[/quote]

This ^ is where our argument hinges. As I said, assume that an embryo is a person. Is the logical progression valid and sound, or not?

169

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean, holy moly. You’re arguing as if murder is one of two things at two different points. A crime of littering, where a messy human corpse is left behind. Which really doesn’t add to much when you consider all the yucky meat bags in total, from whatever cause.

Or,

A cessation of brain activities…Which is in effect an argument of a wrong against the future second where the next second of brain activity would even have any meaning. Potentiality. [/quote]

No, I am arguing that a murder requires the irreversible cessation of heart/brain activity. Definitionally, necessarily. I am correct in this argument. But let’s test that out – see the logical progression above, and assume that an embryo is a person.

170

Since we’re not dealing with natural causes in any case, born or unborn, let’s toss that right out.

Why are we concerned about the CESSATION of brain activity? Past activity is gone from second to second. Already drifted away into non-existence. Why then are we concerned with CESSATION of brain activity? Because of the loss of brain activity in the very next moment of time from here on out. That is, concern for the loss of FUTURE brain activity. Which is exactly what abortion does. It robs what should have been that individual’s future brain activity. So even in the brain department there is a massive gaping inconsistency. A convenient one that, in the end, lets us “fuck” with a little less worry. I hate to curse, as some may have noticed, but here it’s appropriate. Abortion is almost exclusively about human life being worth less than a good “fuck.”

Edit: I said “Which is exactly what abortion does.” I should point out, and undeniably it is pretty much the entire purpose of Abortion. To rid oneself of inconvenient brain activity in one’s life.

171

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Since we’re not dealing with natural causes in any case, born or unborn, let’s toss that right out.

Why are we concerned about the CESSATION of brain activity?[/quote]

Because that is the medical definition of death – demonstrably (I have already demonstrated it), unarguably. Heart/brain activity must have been happening, and it must stop happening. Death cannot (and, medically, does not) entail cessation of what has not begun. This, again, is the medical definition of death. We are no longer in the realm of legal fiction. Abortion is a moral-philosophical issue that hinges on medical-scientific fact. This is the latter, and it can no more be shaped to fit your ideology than the medical-scientific fact of an embryo’s humanness can be fudged to accommodate the radically pro-choice insinuation that an embryo is not human.

172

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Since we’re not dealing with natural causes in any case, born or unborn, let’s toss that right out.

Why are we concerned about the CESSATION of brain activity?[/quote]

Because that is the medical definition of death – demonstrably (I have already demonstrated it), unarguably. Heart/brain activity must have been happening, and it must stop happening. Death cannot (and, medically, does not) entail cessation of what has not begun. This, again, is the medical definition of death. We are no longer in the realm of legal fiction. Abortion is a moral-philosophical issue that hinges on medical-scientific fact. This is the latter, and it can no more be shaped to fit your ideology than the medical-scientific fact of an embryo’s humanness can be fudged to accommodate the radically pro-choice insinuation that an embryo is not human.[/quote]

Come, now. It is a measure, for a doctor to pronounce death in an individual who has already developed a brain. All livings things die (experience death). Any organism, will experience death. Your are unwittingly claiming that all human embryos are dead with this line of reasoning, which no doctor/scientist will claim. Medical science/bold, has in fact already told us that the embryo is already an individual HUMAN organism (Living).

But that all this completely ignores what my point was, and what I attempted to get out of you. That is, WHY THE CONCERN WITH CESSATION? Prior activity would be gone in history regardless. The concern is with the next moment. And the next. Future brain activity. That is inarguable.

173

Oh, and future activity is covered too: “irreversible.”

That is just what the medical death is: the heart/brain is/are working, and they stop working forever. These are the necessary ingredients of death, and this is medical fact.

174

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Oh, and future activity is covered too: “irreversible.”

[/quote]

Now if you apply that, you’ll have to agree with the pro-life side.

175

Good talk, but I honestly must go.

176

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Since we’re not dealing with natural causes in any case, born or unborn, let’s toss that right out.

Why are we concerned about the CESSATION of brain activity?[/quote]

Because that is the medical definition of death – demonstrably (I have already demonstrated it), unarguably. Heart/brain activity must have been happening, and it must stop happening. Death cannot (and, medically, does not) entail cessation of what has not begun. This, again, is the medical definition of death. We are no longer in the realm of legal fiction. Abortion is a moral-philosophical issue that hinges on medical-scientific fact. This is the latter, and it can no more be shaped to fit your ideology than the medical-scientific fact of an embryo’s humanness can be fudged to accommodate the radically pro-choice insinuation that an embryo is not human.[/quote]

Come, now. It is a measure, for a doctor to pronounce death in an individual who has already developed a brain.[/quote]

It is the medical definition. You and I don’t decide what are and are not medical facts, just as pro-choice crusaders don’t get to decide what is and is not human in accordance with his desire to pretend that an embryo is an inanimate object.

[quote]
All livings things die (experience death). Any organism, will experience death.[/quote]

Yes, but what is at issue is not whether or not an organism dies: it is whether or not a person dies. This being a necessary condition for murder.

[quote]
Your are unwittingly claiming that all human embryos are dead with this line of reasoning, which no doctor/scientist will claim.[/quote]

No, I’m not. I am claiming that embryos are incapable of being people who die – under the undisputed facts of medicine – and therefore that they are incapable of being murdered.

[quote]
Medical science/bold, has in fact already told us that the embryo is already an individual HUMAN organism (Living).[/quote]

Yes (note that this is an appeal to medical science). And yet this human organism is incapable of incapable of being a person who dies. This because of the medical facts entailed by the death of a human person (here, too, an appeal to science – refuse to accept it and you are guilty of special pleading).

[quote]
But that all this completely ignores what my point was, and what I attempted to get out of you. That is, WHY THE CONCERN WITH CESSATION? Prior activity would be gone in history regardless. The concern is with the next moment. And the next. Future brain activity. That is inarguable.[/quote]

No, what is unarguable is that the medical definition of death requires both prior heart/brain activity (cessation) and the impossibility of future brain activity (irreversible). This because death is a change of precisely-defined medical-scientific states, and change logically requires direct discontinuity between the states it separates.

Again, though, the upshot is this: what is unarguable is that the medical definition of death requires both prior heart/brain activity (cessation) and the impossibility of future brain activity (irreversible). I already demonstrated this previously in the thread.

177

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Good talk, but I honestly must go.[/quote]

Yes, me too. I’ll be working late into the night because of this, though I don’t regret it. (Also, I wrote my last post before I saw this – not trying to be a dick by hitting you with a long post just before the buzzer).

As always, the debate is appreciated.

179

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[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]

Don’t be retarded Bismark, it’s unbecoming.
[/quote]

An insult instead of a reasoned response. Color me surprised. If a woman takes the morning after pill and prevents a eukaryotic zygote from continuing, has she committed murder (that is, the unlawful and premeditated killing of another person)? Is the pharmacy that she procured it from an accomplice to murder? Is she the moral and legal equivalent of someone who murders an elementary school student? [/quote]

I don’t give reasoned responses to non-sense. That’s why folks like Pitt are on ignore. [/quote]

How is it nonsense? You claim that a zygote is a “real person just like you or me”. I’m asking if you believe that the morning after pill taken after fettilization is murder and equivalent to the unambiguous murder of an elementary school student. Pretty straightforward. [/quote]

Yes, they are basically the same thing and should be treated as such under the law.[/quote]

Bis and those on Team Genocide are coming from “out of sight, out of mind” territory. Because the prenatal child is hidden in the womb and the elementary student is plainly visible they can rationalize it away.[/quote]

Not quite. I draw the line at 24 weeks - when brain waves begin. The fetus will still be out of sight for a while at the point.

If aborting an embryo or embryo to be is murder as all the pro-lifers in this thread assert that it is, and abortion eventually goes the way of its “relative” slavery, will not every women who has has an abortion and every doctor who has performed one be on the hook for murder? After all, the crime has no statute of limitations. You’re ok with that outcome? You’re ok with one in three women being sought on murder charges? Why about their supportive partners or friends? Accomplices to murder? [/quote]

If claiming and putting a human piece of property in chains is slavery as all the abolitionists in this thread assert that it is, and slavery eventually goes away, will not every person who has has owned a slave and every trader who has marketed one be on the hook for slavery? After all, it is a crime whether or not there is a statute of limitations. You’re ok with that outcome? You’re ok with otherwise law-abiding citizens being sought on slavery charges? What about their supportive partners or friends? Accomplices to slavery?
[/quote]

You’re pushing rope Push. Enough with the flaccid comparisons. Would you be ok with the aforementioned being charged with murder, or not? After all, terminating a pregnancy is “murder”, and murder has no statute of limitations.