Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 77 of 77
  1. #61
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I believe it says "seemingly", and the rest of your source pretty much goes with mine
    Either way, I said "random" and it is correct. It means that the choice is unreasonable/random and both sides, pro-choice and pro-life, do have reasoning for their beliefs so neither position qualifies as arbitrary.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Though I still don't see life starting at conception as a subjective and/or arbitrary point and the pro choice side seems completely subjective and/or arbitrary.
    Life starting at conception is not subjective. What is subjective is saying that that is the point where we should outlaw abortion.

    And it's no less arbitrary than picking a different point in the pregnancy to hold that that is the point where the fetus should enjoy legal protections.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It seems something IBELSD said is probably fairly close to right on. Something to the effect of "we (our society) just don't value the unborn very highly". Just not sure why that is?
    I would say that almost everyone, even most pro-lifers, place more value on the born than the unborn.

    As a hypothetical, if you present a pro-lifer with three women in the early stages of pregnancy and ask if these women should be allowed to have an abortion, he will say "no". But what if he had to choose between the three fetuses and a born baby (a mother with a born baby who will kill it if the three women don't have abortions)? I won't say that every pro-lifer will give the same answer (or what your answer would be) but it's safe to say that some would choose to save the born baby over the three fetuses.

    And this in no way shows hypocrisy on the parts of those who choose to save the baby instead of the fetuses. The person would still save the three fetuses if he wasn't forced into this decision and therefore does indeed have sincere concern for the three fetuses. But it does show that he does not value the born and the unborn equally.

    And I think the decision to save the born baby makes sense even for a pro-lifer. It's not irrational or arbitrary to view the issue on a scale instead of as a binary choice.

    If you want to view it as a binary choice instead of a scale, you may. But that is a subjective decision just like viewing it as a scale is subjective.
    Last edited by mican333; November 23rd, 2017 at 04:32 PM.

  2. #62
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Life starting at conception is not subjective. What is subjective is saying that that is the point where we should outlaw abortion.

    Mican, we are starting to "communicate", and I am not sure why, but I like it

  3. #63
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It means that the choice is unreasonable/random and both sides, pro-choice and pro-life, do have reasoning for their beliefs so neither position qualifies as arbitrary.
    And that would be a big negative cause we already know the pro choice side doesn't have a fixed point where the fetus is a legal life. Different pro choice people pick different times. Maybe, second trimester, maybe third????So it is definitely an arbitrary choice (though I 'm not in love with that particular word if you like we could choose another. Random don't work, but certainly subjective should suffice? Agreed?)

    ---------- Post added at 05:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Life starting at conception is not subjective. What is subjective is saying that that is the point where we should outlaw abortion.
    In a post on a given website perhaps, but if it were entered as fact in a COURTROOM that life legally begins at conception the conversation would pretty much be over. There is no possible way an abortion could be used as birth control given that definition.

    ---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I would say that almost everyone, even most pro-lifers, place more value on the born than the unborn.
    Could you support this please?
    (actually, I hope you can't, it is so sad...)

    ---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As a hypothetical, if you present a pro-lifer with three women in the early stages of pregnancy and ask if these women should be allowed to have an abortion, he will say "no". But what if he had to choose between the three fetuses and a born baby (a mother with a born baby who will kill it if the three women don't have abortions)? I won't say that every pro-lifer will give the same answer (or what your answer would be) but it's safe to say that some would choose to save the born baby over the three fetuses.
    You and Future seem to like the most bizarre extreme examples......

    How about do not choose at all. You are dealing with a psychopath! Just because she said she wouldn't kill her baby if the three abortions happen, doesn't mean she won't kill it anyway for God's sake. After all, only a seriously disturbed person would make such a dilemma in the first place, and since this person seems out of your control the potential deaths would not be on your hands if you remained silent...

    If you choose who is to die, then you are part of it! The moral thing to do is be silent. If a mother chooses to kill her child you are not part of it.

  4. #64
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And that would be a big negative cause we already know the pro choice side doesn't have a fixed point where the fetus is a legal life. Different pro choice people pick different times. Maybe, second trimester, maybe third????So it is definitely an arbitrary choice (though I 'm not in love with that particular word if you like we could choose another. Random don't work, but certainly subjective should suffice? Agreed?)
    Subjective works fine (since I've consistently argued that BOTH the pro-choice and pro-life positions are subjective). But subjective does not mean arbitrary and you have not supported that the pro-choice viewpoint fits the definition of arbitrary (which does equate with randomness) so "arbitrary" does not work.

    And you seem to be implying that there's something wrong with not having a fixed point. That is not true at all. I think something that is obviously very complex should necessarily have fixed and simple standards applied to it. That's not to say that it's absolutely wrong to have a simple standard if you feel it's appropriate but having an unfixed standard is not flawed at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    In a post on a given website perhaps, but if it were entered as fact in a COURTROOM that life legally begins at conception the conversation would pretty much be over. There is no possible way an abortion could be used as birth control given that definition.
    ONLY if it becomes a legal principle that when "life begins" is when "a life is entitled to full legal protection of the law" and you have not shown that that would be or should be the case.

    And really, the current state of affairs shows that your legal opinion is wrong. You argue that it's an objective scientific fact that life starts at conception. If so, then this is already clearly recognized by the courts for the court has dealt with abortion cases many, many times so there's no way that this has not been brought up and yet abortion is still generally legal after "life starts".

    So really, it's either the court recognizes that life starts at conception but that does not mean that it's entitled to the legal right to life or the court does not recognize that life begins at conception and therefore it's not a recognized objective fact that it does.

    Really, I should say that "life begins" is a vague term so I guess I retract that it's an objective fact that it does (but I'll concede something similar by the end of this paragraph). I'm not saying that it doesn't but that the term is imprecise so it's not objective true. I mean "life began" eons ago when the first living organism emerged from the primordial soup. And of course that's not what you mean when you say "life begins". You mean "a specific human being begins to live" but then what specifically does THAT mean? I would say that means that a very simple organism is created that has a unique set of human DNA and will, assuming it implants (roughly 50% chance of that happening) and is successfully carried to term, will become a born human being. And if you want to that that is what is meant by the term "life begins", that's fine. I'll go along with that. But I don't see why the courts would be forced to declare that the simple organism with human DNA must be entitled to the right to life just because it's a life that has begun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Could you support this please?
    See below.

    But besides that scenario, I will also support it by pointing out that some pro-lifers are for allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest. IF the born and unborn are truly equal and one would be against a born person being killed just because they were conceived by rape/incest, allowing abortion in such cases shows that one values the born more than the unborn.

    Roughly 45% of people consider themselves "pro-life" but 83% of people think that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape and incest.

    In support of the 83% statistic

    "Those findings are similar to those of a CNN survey conducted in August, which found even higher percentages saying abortion should be legal in cases when a woman’s life was in danger (88 percent), when her health was in danger (83 percent) or when she was a victim of rape or incest (83 percent)."

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...n_2044973.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You and Future seem to like the most bizarre extreme examples......
    It's not that bizarre. It's a pretty simple scenario where one has to choose between one born baby and three fetuses.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    How about do not choose at all. You are dealing with a psychopath! Just because she said she wouldn't kill her baby if the three abortions happen, doesn't mean she won't kill it anyway for God's sake. After all, only a seriously disturbed person would make such a dilemma in the first place, and since this person seems out of your control the potential deaths would not be on your hands if you remained silent...

    If you choose who is to die, then you are part of it! The moral thing to do is be silent. If a mother chooses to kill her child you are not part of it.
    Assume in my scenario that if you remain silent then they all die (everyone kills their baby and fetuses). So you can save a baby's life (and certainly afterwards the baby will be removed from the mother because she is going to be arrested). So let me say that I would save the baby's life in that scenario instead of the fetuses because I do value the baby more. If I valued the fetuses equally to the baby, I would save them instead (for I would be saving three "human beings" instead of just one).

    And now that you are aware that you have the option of saving one or the other (or none at all), what would your choice be? And I guess you don't have to answer (after all, I reserve the right to not answer questions) but my point is many pro-lifers would certain choose to save the born baby. This shows that many pro-lifers don't view the born and unborn as exactly the same (although they do think that they all deserve legal protection from being killed). There's not nothing wrong or inconsistent in such a viewpoint so I'm not forwarding this as a criticism of the pro-lifer side. I think it's a perfectly reasonable (although still subjective) position and would HOPE that if there's ever a choice between saving the born and the unborn, one would save the born every time.

    So this is my support that both pro-lifers and pro-choicers put more value on the born than the unborn - as they should.

  5. #65
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Subjective works fine (since I've consistently argued that BOTH the pro-choice and pro-life positions are subjective). But subjective does not mean arbitrary and you have not supported that the pro-choice viewpoint fits the definition of arbitrary (which does equate with randomness) so "arbitrary" does not work.
    After I have already agreed to use subjective instead of arbitrary your tenacity to press on is misplaced. Plus 4 out of 5 definitions from your source still agree with me and there is still dictionary.com that completely agrees with me:
    "4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported:
    an arbitrary demand for payment."

    So let's just let it go please and move forward.

    ---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    ONLY if it becomes a legal principle that when "life begins" is when "a life is entitled to full legal protection of the law" and you have not shown that that would be or should be the case.
    It is the case that when you are legally a "person" you would be afforded legal protection of your life.

    ---------- Post added at 05:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's not that bizarre.
    What country do you live in where a mother would threaten to kill her OWN child if three pregnant women did NOT each have an abortion

    That is bizarre to the extreme in the free/developed world.....

    ---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Assume in my scenario
    Assume that I would like to stay with normal reality for the rest of the conversation please

    ---------- Post added at 05:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Assume in my scenario that if you remain silent then they all die (everyone kills their baby and fetuses). So you can save a baby's life (and certainly afterwards the baby will be removed from the mother because she is going to be arrested). So let me say that I would save the baby's life in that scenario instead of the fetuses because I do value the baby more. If I valued the fetuses equally to the baby, I would save them instead (for I would be saving three "human beings" instead of just one).
    Then the psychopath kills four humans, not you. You could make a choice and the psychopath could still kill all four, there is hardly a guarantee!! Do you REALLY trust this warped person to keep there promise just because you chose who would live/die?!?!?

    Look, if you choose who lives, you are choosing who dies also. It would not be the moral thing to do to play the psychopath's "game". By not choosing YOU CAUSE NO ONE TO DIE!!!!

    Now again, I have no more interest in these weird/bizarre/extreme examples.

    ---------- Post added at 06:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:42 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Roughly 45% of people consider themselves "pro-life" but 83% of people think that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape and incest.

    Hmmm, Huff Post, 2012, ok.

    http://www.lifenews.com/2016/01/19/n...wade-turns-43/
    "A new national poll shows a strong majority of Americans — including a majority of those who consider themselves “pro-choice” on abortion — support substantial abortion limits.
    The survey found that more than 8 in 10 Americans (81 percent), including women (82 percent) and nearly two-thirds of pro-choice supporters (66 percent), would restrict abortion to — at most — the first three months of pregnancy"

    Or this here Gallop poll showing majority against in 2013:
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...tions-n1592505
    "(2) Fully 58 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, or only permitted in "a few."* Just 39 percent say the practice should be legal in "all" or "most" circumstances."

    Which only means, with the courts and public opinion changing, in a few yrs, your own argument could be used against you.

    This is the subjective point of your position.

    My position is not. A person is a person at conception (born or not) and abortion should not be used as birth control.

  6. #66
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    After I have already agreed to use subjective instead of arbitrary your tenacity to press on is misplaced. Plus 4 out of 5 definitions from your source still agree with me and there is still dictionary.com that completely agrees with me:
    "4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported:
    an arbitrary demand for payment."

    So let's just let it go please and move forward.
    I will drop the "arbitrary" argument when you have dropped it. And I noticed that you still argue that it fits the definition of "arbitrary".

    I disagree that it does and you have not supported that the pro-choice position meets any criteria other than "subjective" so no, I disagree that it fits 4 out of 5 definitions of "arbitrary" (or fits it better than the pro-life position) and if you are going to continue to argue that it does, you will need to support it.

    But I will take you at your word that you want to drop the "arbitrary" argument and consider this issue settled.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It is the case that when you are legally a "person" you would be afforded legal protection of your life.
    And since abortion is legal and no fetus is afforded full legal protections until they are born (even late-term unborn do not have full legal protection although they do have a lot of legal protection), it appears that one is not legally a "person" until they are born.

    BTW, I'm just pointing out the current state of the law and in no way am arguing that this means that abortion should remain legal because of what the law is (to do so would be to engage in the Is/Ought fallacy).


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Assume that I would like to stay with normal reality for the rest of the conversation please
    Using a hypothetical scenario within an argument is a valid way to make a point. And of course you are free to not address an argument of mine for any reason, including that you don't want to engage a hypothetical scenario. But an unaddressed argument is an argument that has not been rebutted and it stands for that reason.

    Regardless of how the choice is presented, my point is that if one had to choose between saving the life of a born baby or saving the life of three early-stage fetuses, it seems very reasonable for anyone, including pro-lifers to save the life of the born baby and this demonstrates that most do not value them the same.

    You can come up with any hypothetical scenario you want to present this choice if you don't like mine. The story is not the point. The point is that people would generally save a baby over three fetuses.

    So if you don't want to rebut my argument, that's fine with me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Hmmm, Huff Post, 2012, ok.
    Hmmm. Lifenews and townhall.com. ok.

    As far as polling goes, let's just go to the Gallup site.

    http://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

    What it shows is that is that it's pretty consistently.

    Legal under any - high 20 percent (with an increase from the low twenties about a decade ago
    Legal only under certain - Around 50
    Illegal in all - around 20

    And again, people who identify themselves as pro-life are around 45%. That means that less than half pro-lifers feel that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances and therefore do not view the unborn as complete equals to the born (for those who do think they are equals would have to be in the "illegal in all" ca

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Which only means, with the courts and public opinion changing, in a few yrs, your own argument could be used against you.
    What argument is that? I certainly never appealed to popular opinion in my arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    This is the subjective point of your position.

    My position is not.
    As far as I can tell, your position is subjective. But if you are going to claim that it is not, then please make an argument against abortion that uses no subjective reasoning whatsoever. Otherwise, your claim that your position is entirely objective fails for lack of support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    A person is a person at conception (born or not)
    That sounds subjective to me - basically it's a semantic argument.

    So forget the word "person" or specific terms. What specifically is it about the milestone of conception that you hold grants one the right to life? Just being able to semantically apply a word like "person" to something does not mean that one has such a right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    and abortion should not be used as birth control.
    That "birth control" argument really doesn't work. I mean you are arguing that abortion should not be allowed at all, right? So I see no reason to focus on it being used for birth control unless you are going to compromise on allowing women to have abortions as long as they aren't using it for birth control.

    For example, what if a woman becomes pregnant through rape and wants to get an abortion because of that? That's not using abortion for birth control. So are you for allowing her to have an abortion if she's raped? If so, then you are saying that the life of an unborn "person" who is conceived by rape is not deserving of the right to life that a born "person" who is conceived by rape (for no one is suggesting legalizing the killing of born people who were conceived by rape).

    So assuming you are in the "illegal in all" category, you should be saying that abortion should not be used at all, not saying that it should not be used as birth control.

  7. #67
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    91
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    What are you suggesting I mean by the word human?
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking you what you mean.
    I'm talking about what the unborn is.

    Human = human being. I have used the term 'human' and 'human being' interchangeably.

    Are you searching for some obscure meaning for a human being?

    Here is what I said:

    "Yes, human DNA from a male and female human combine to create a separate, individual, human being. I'm puzzled over what is so difficult to understand about this."

    "A human being - a being that is human. It either is a human being or some other kind of being."

    ***

    Definition of human
    1
    : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
    2
    : consisting of humans
    3
    a : having human form or attributes
    b : representative of or susceptible to the sympathies and frailties of human nature

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human

    Definition of being
    1
    a : the quality or state of having existence
    c : conscious existence
    2
    : the qualities that constitute an existent thing
    3
    : a living thing

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/being

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Are you refusing to define the terms that you are using?
    Typical usage - I already laid that out. When I speak of the unborn, I see no difference in its NATURE than I do of any other human being, other than being less developed, smaller in size, and dependent on another human being for its existence. I also see the newborn as less developed than other human beings, smaller, and dependent on another human being for its existence.

    I pumped you on what you meant at various times through our discourse, for I got the distinct feeling from the start, judging by your wording, and your objections, that the unborn was being degraded.

    I provided textbook definitions and included what professionals in the field of biology and embryology had to say regarding the unborn (at conception).

    You presented scenarios and opinions that suggest its human worth as demoted.

    ***

    I didn't realize it was that difficult to know what a human is.

    Even you said:
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Life starting at conception is not subjective. What is subjective is saying that that is the point where we should outlaw abortion.
    You KNOW life starts at conception; this is when a new human being commences.

    The pro-choice position does not acknowledge that life as valuable as other human life. They push another narrative.
    We can't kill a newborn who is human, but we can kill an unborn who is human. How is that not losing the intrinsic value of a human being?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I would say anything that's "human" has human DNA and therefore unfertilized eggs, which have human DNA, are "human". Now obviously that is not what you mean. So unless you want to include unfertilized eggs under the umbrella of "human" for this discussion, you need to define the term.
    A human denotes a human being which includes its human DNA. Human beings encompass more than DNA. It incorporates the beings essence and nature, existing and having the traits of humanness, separate from the mother in being.

    So yes, a human has human DNA, but at CONCEPTION a SEPARATE human/human being starts to live. An unfertilized human egg is NOT a SEPARATE human being; it is part of the woman's body and HER DNA. A fertilized human egg is a separate, unique human being.

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    Post 55: "Assuming that you are including the unborn under the term human beings, I will say that I can observe that unborn humans do not have a legal right to life (as in there is no legal principle giving them that right)."
    Why would I assume the unborn is anything other than a human being? Who, in their right mind, would say it is anything other than a human being? That is what the unborn human is - a human being.

    So, one class of human beings has been devalued by society. That is the issue with abortion. You don't see people legally killing born human beings in the millions and billions, merely because they choose to, and that without moral outrage.

    Why is that? I contend that it is because society has made the unborns life cheap like Hilter made the Jews life inferior.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Post 28: "Okay:
    1) The unborn is a human being.
    2) Human life is intrinsically valuable.
    3) It is reasonable to believe the unborn is a person.
    4) Taking the life of an innocent human being is murder, not a right."
    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Post 29: "This appears to be nothing but semantics. If you want to apply the term "human being" to the unborn, that's fine. But that in and of itself does not mean that the unborn should have the legal right to life (as in we should grant the unborn the same legal right to life that the born have)."
    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Post 29: PGA2 - 2) Human life is intrinsically valuable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I agree. But that doesn't mean that the unborn should have the legal right to life. I think an unfertilized human egg has intrinsic value for is they did not exist, neither would born humans. But obviously there is no real problem with most human eggs dying before they become born humans.
    If the unborn do not have equal legal rights to LIFE, they do not have the same intrinsic worth. The unborn, at conception has its humanness downgraded. You agree that human life is intrinsically valuable, then you deny that the unborn should have the legal right to this value of life.

    You also conflate an unfertilized egg as equal with a fertilized egg. They are not the same. One is a unique, distinct human being. The other is part of an already living human being - the woman.

    If the unborn is a human being, it should have the same value any other human being has. If it does not, then you get into situations like Nazi Germany when the intrinsic value of a human being is downplayed by making it LESS than what it is. What happened in Nazi Germany is EXACTLY what is done with the unborn human being.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Post 29: PGA2 - 4) Taking the life of an innocent human being is murder, not a right.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    [1]This is not true. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. [2] Assuming, per #1, you are grouping the unborn under the term "human being", then it is not unlawful to kill them and therefore it is not technically murder."
    [1] Not true? So I can kill an innocent human being!!! You seem to think that because something is law that it makes it right. I will document a few cases later and see what you think.

    No. It is always wrong to take an innocent human life without proper justification.

    [2] Once again, you make the case that the unborn is 1) not intrinsically valuable (disposable), 2) not as equally human.

    You would not be doing the same thing with the born human being. Why can you legislate a human being out of existence before birth but not after birth?

    Post 34 I listed medical and biological texts that stated that the unborn is a human being.

    “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
    Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

    Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:
    “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”

    Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
    “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

    “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”
    Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

    “….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.”
    Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

    Scarr, S., Weinberg, R.A., and Levine A., Understanding Development, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1986. page 86
    “The development of a new human being begins when a male’s sperm pierces the cell membrane of a female’s ovum, or egg….The villi become the placenta, which will nourish the developing infant for the next eight and a half months.”

    Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
    “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”


    ***

    Now, if you have a problem with semantics, then you should take your case up with these and a host of other professionals, because as far as they are concerned, the unborn, from the moment of fertilization, is a human being.

    ***

    The official Senate report reached this conclusion:
    "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."
    Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.

    http://abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Post 55: "The only reason I'm debating you on this is because you have chose to challenge my reasoning. If a pro-choicer attacked my position and attempted to argue that the pro-choice position is based on something other than opinion, then I'd be debating him."
    It is not OPINION that the unborn is a human being. If you think this, then it is a fatal flaw in your thinking, for the unborn is a human being. You even stated as much.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Life starting at conception is not subjective.
    Again, proving that less value is placed on the unborn human being since its life is taken but it is against the law to abort the existence of a newborn, and just by the mothers choice on because of its inconvenience.

    Legislating that the woman can choose the unborns fate does not make it less than a human being. Its humanness IS NOT OPINION. It is its nature.

    Pro-life is not just another subjective opinion. I object to this caricature. Pro-life argues that the unborn is a human being and intrinsically valuable. If human beings are intrinsically valuable, then the unborn should be so also. If not all human beings are inherently valuable, then what Hitler did is justifiable, yet we know it is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Quite simply, it appears to me that you are equivocating - as in intentionally using imprecise terminology to erase the difference between born humans and human fetuses and therefore be able to claim that they are essentially the same by just using a word instead of using an argument that establishes that they are the same in a way that they are equally deserving of the right to life.
    Imprecise terminology? And you are confusing a human fetus with not being as human as a born human. If it is a human being, then it should have the same worth.

    Both human unborn and human born are human beings. I am using 'human' in the same sense. I see no difference in it being before birth and after birth regarding its humanness.

    Human fetuses are not different in KIND than born human beings. They are just as much human by nature, only in a different stage of development.

    Would your argument for killing the unborn also work for the born? YOU MUST assume the unborn is something less than human because you freely justify it being killed. You would not infer the same fate with the newborn or any other innocent human being, would you?

    You even give an example of the four women in which you allege the unborn human worth is not considered as valuable as the newborn by most people.

    Why is this so? What makes the unborn less of a human being, or less valuable, in your estimation, or the opinion of society?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Maybe I'm right about you equivocating and maybe I'm wrong. But one sure way to avoid equivocation is to nail down precise definitions of the words that we use. So either give me the definition of "human" that you want to use or we are going to use the one that I forwarded (having human DNA).
    I'm not equivocating on human beings or human value.

    That is the total of what a human is to you - having human DNA. If so, then there is no difference between a born and unborn human being. But you continually suggest there is a difference. Please, state the differences.

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    If you are going to treat one human different than another human in ending its life, by declassifying its human worth, you open the door to do so with any human being.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Support or retract this assertion.
    I will support my assertion next.

    Peter

  8. Likes Belthazor liked this post
  9. #68
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That sounds subjective to me - basically it's a semantic argument.

    So forget the word "person" or specific terms. What specifically is it about the milestone of conception that you hold grants one the right to life? Just being able to semantically apply a word like "person" to something does not mean that one has such a right.
    I used "person" but any number of terms is fine with me. YOU and ONLY you keep making this semantics. I use synonyms to help convey a thought. You focus on the words. Kinda like "looking at the letter of the law instead of the intent of a law".

    So you tell me what word we can use to describe what "YOU" are that makes you a life/human/person/intrinsically valuable/individual or ????

    I don't care to quibble over a stupid word anymore.

    ---------- Post added at 05:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That "birth control" argument really doesn't work. I mean you are arguing that abortion should not be allowed at all, right? So I see no reason to focus on it being used for birth control unless you are going to compromise on allowing women to have abortions as long as they aren't using it for birth control.

    For example, what if a woman becomes pregnant through rape and wants to get an abortion because of that? That's not using abortion for birth control. So are you for allowing her to have an abortion if she's raped? If so, then you are saying that the life of an unborn "person" who is conceived by rape is not deserving of the right to life that a born "person" who is conceived by rape (for no one is suggesting legalizing the killing of born people who were conceived by rape).

    So assuming you are in the "illegal in all" category, you should be saying that abortion should not be used at all, not saying that it should not be used as birth control.

    Between this kind of comment and the emphasis on semantics I am about ready to move on.

    I have argued about abort as birth control! My example wasn't some bizarre ass hypothetical!!!!
    (Who has ever had to decide between somebody's born child and three fetus' to live for God's sake).

    A girl hooks up with a guy and gets pregnant. Doesn't want it. Has an abortion. Many of these women have more than one. Some many more.

    AND

    I WAS PRO-CHOICE UNTIL THIS THREAD (and the current abortion thread). I just decided to take the pro-life side on a whim,

    so don't try to tell me what I believe to make it part of the argument.

    (and I'm pretty sure a law could be crafted that doesn't make it 100% legal/illegal in ALL cases).

  10. Likes PGA2 liked this post
  11. #69
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I used "person" but any number of terms is fine with me. YOU and ONLY you keep making this semantics. I use synonyms to help convey a thought. You focus on the words. Kinda like "looking at the letter of the law instead of the intent of a law".
    I disagree. I did not quibble on the word that you used. Let's look at what I said again:

    So forget the word "person" or specific terms. What specifically is it about the milestone of conception that you hold grants one the right to life? Just being able to semantically apply a word like "person" to something does not mean that one has such a right.

    So I'm not saying that this word or that word is right or wrong. I'm saying that applying ANY word to the unborn does not grant it the legal right to life. So go ahead and call it a "person" if you want. But if you are going to make the case that an unborn person is entitled to the legal right to life, you will need to explain why that is the case and just applying words like "person" does not do that.

    So okay. It's a "person". I never said you can't or should not use that word. Now explain why an unborn "person" is entitled to a legal right to life.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Between this kind of comment and the emphasis on semantics I am about ready to move on.

    I have argued about abort as birth control!
    So does that mean that you are for allowing abortion if it's not being used as birth control (such as having an abortion because one was raped)?

    I'm actually asking because I'm a bit confused on where you are drawing the line now. So please clarify your position on when abortion should or should not be allowed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    My example wasn't some bizarre ass hypothetical!!!!
    (Who has ever had to decide between somebody's born child and three fetus' to live for God's sake)
    And you avoided the point of the hypothetical by complaining that it was bizarre.

    So how about addressing the point without a hypothetical? If one had to choose between saving one born baby and three fetuses, which would they choose (we will dispense with the hypothetical situation where such an even may arise since it seems to distract)? I hold that almost everyone would save the born baby and therefore it's generally agreed that a born baby is more valuable than a fetus. That's my point without any "bizarre" example. And you may still refuse to address this argument if you wish but my point is made. People generally favor the born over the unborn.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    A girl hooks up with a guy and gets pregnant. Doesn't want it. Has an abortion. Many of these women have more than one. Some many more.
    But I find this situation kind of irrelevant to whether a woman has the right to abortion. If the fetus is indeed entitled to the legal right to life, then why she wants the abortion is irrelevant - she can't have one so it doesn't matter if she wants it for birth control or for some other reason.

    And if the fetus does not have the legal right to life, then why she wants to have an abortion is of no valid concern to the state because her medical decisions are a matter of personal privacy (even a bad reason is still a private reason). Of course you can personally criticize such a person but she still has the right to privacy which means what she does regarding her pregnancy is legally none of your business and the only valid way for the state to intervene is to hold that there is a higher concern than her right to privacy and of course the right to life for the fetus, if the state did declare such a right, would suffice.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I WAS PRO-CHOICE UNTIL THIS THREAD (and the current abortion thread). I just decided to take the pro-life side on a whim,

    so don't try to tell me what I believe to make it part of the argument.
    I didn't say that you personally believed anything. I am commenting on your argument. You have presented the argument that upon conception the unborn should have the same right to life as a born person. I never once said that that is what you personally believe. But it IS an argument that you presented and it is somewhat contradicted by opposing abortion as birth control for that indicates that abortion should be allowed if it's not done for birth control but for other reasons.

    So to be clear, do you think abortion should be allowed if the woman was raped and wants to not have the rapist's baby? If so, then you agree that sometimes it is permissible to abort an unborn "person" and therefore such a "person" is not entitled to the full legal protections that a born person enjoys, right?



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    (and I'm pretty sure a law could be crafted that doesn't make it 100% legal/illegal in ALL cases).
    We have that now. But we can't have such a law if we grant the unborn the legal right to life that the born have.
    Last edited by mican333; November 27th, 2017 at 07:22 PM.

  12. #70
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    91
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    If you are going to treat one human different than another human in ending its life, by declassifying its human worth, you open the door to do so with any human being.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Support or retract this assertion.
    I don't understand what is so difficult to comprehend.

    Unborn human beings are being devalued and dehumanized.

    The Nazis segregated the Jews. Through their propaganda machine and evolutionary thinking, they dehumanized blacks, the unborn, the sickly, the deformed. They reasoned that some members of the human family were different or had not evolved to the same level as others, so they justified killing them.

    I will demonstrate that once a class of humans is devalued, it can lead to their death, primarily by citing Nazi Germany as the example. I could also show exploitation with Apartheid in South Africa, or many other cases, once a group is dehumanized.

    I will try to show how the unborn has been devalued in the propaganda mills of Western Society with similar language and legislature as Nazi Germany did with the Jew.

    In 1928, Joseph Goebbels wrote, 'Do we Oppose the Jews'? stating that the Jew is a human being but not a decent human being, living by different internal and external laws than the German does. He argues the fact the Jew is a human being that is oppressing the German and bullying him in inhuman ways. Then Goebbels claims he is a human being, but what kind? He likes him to a human being who whips your mother in the face, and because he does so, he is no human being but a monster (metaphorically speaking. The analogy goes on to describe the mother as Mother Germany.

    Thus, as the discrimination progresses, the German hierarchy goes on to treat the Jew, a member of his society, and a fellow German (as well as a human being), as much worse than the Jew supposedly ever treated the German. Again, he devalued the Jew and made him inhuman.

    See Goebbels essay published in Der Angriff, 30 July 1928, in which he outlines the nature of Nazi anti-Semitism.

    http://research.calvin.edu/german-pr...e/angrif17.htm

    ***

    Wikipedia lists various components of dehumanizing people:

    "Dehumanization...a behavior or process that undermines individuality of and in others. Behaviorally, dehumanization...debases the others' individuality as either an "individual" species or an "individual" object, e.g., someone who acts inhumanely towards humans."

    “Dehumanisation is...central to intergroup violence...frequently the most important precursor to moral exclusion, the process by which stigmatized groups are placed outside the boundary in which moral values, rules, and considerations of fairness apply.”

    Animal Dehumanization:
    "In Nick Haslam's review, he differentiates between uniquely human (UH) characteristics, which distinguish humans from other animals, and human nature (HN), characteristics that are typical of or central to human beings. His model suggests that different types of dehumanization arise from the denial of one sense of humanness or the other...Cognitive flexibility, emotionality, vital agency, and warmth are central to human nature. Characteristics of human nature are perceived to be widely shared among groups (i.e., every human has these traits),"

    "People that suffer animalistic dehumanization are seen as amoral, unintelligent, and lacking self-control, and they are likened to animals. This has happened to Jewish people during The Holocaust, and indigenous people subject to colonization and slavery."

    "Dehumanization often occurs as a result of conflict in an intergroup context....Historically, dehumanization is frequently connected to genocidal conflicts in that ideologies before and during the conflict link victims to rodents/vermin."

    "Sociologists and historians often view dehumanization as central to war. Governments sometimes represent "enemy" civilians or soldiers as less than human so that voters will be more likely to support a war they may otherwise consider mass murder."

    "Dictatorships use the same process to prevent opposition by citizens. Such efforts often depend on preexisting racist, sectarian, or otherwise biased beliefs, which governments play upon through various types of media, presenting "enemies" as barbaric, as undeserving of rights, and as threats to the nation."

    "The Holocaust during World War II and the Rwandan Genocide have both been cited as atrocities facilitated by a government sanctioned dehumanization of its citizens. In terms of the Holocaust, government proliferated propaganda created a culture of dehumanization of the Jewish population."

    "When people become things, the logic follows, they become dispensable, and any atrocity can be justified."

    "In the United States of America, Americans of African ancestry were dehumanised via the classification of being deemed as a primate, not a human."

    Medical Experiments
    "Nazi scientists conducted horrific experiments on Jewish people during the Holocaust. This was justified in the name of research and progress which is indicative of the far reaching affects that the culture of dehumanization had upon this society."

    "Researchers have identified six potential causes of dehumanization in medicine: deindivudating practices, impaired patient agency, dissimilarity (causes which do not facilitate the delivery of medical treatment), mechanization, empathy reduction, and moral disengagement (which could be argued, do facilitate the delivery of medical treatment)."

    "From the patient point of view, in some states in America, controversial legislation requires that a woman view the ultrasound image of her fetus before being able to have an abortion. Critics of the law argue that simply seeing an image of the fetus humanizes it, and biases women against abortion."

    [What about bias towards the unborn?]

    "Anthropomorphism (i.e., perceiving in nonhuman entities mental and physical capacities that reflect humans) is the inverse of dehumanization, which occurs when characteristics that apply to humans are denied to other humans."

    [Characteristics of humanness is denied the unborn]

    "Researchers have found that engaging in violent video game play diminishes perceptions of both one's own humanity and the humanity of the players who are targets of the violence in the games."

    "Dehumanization has occurred historically under the pre-tense of "progress in the name of science"."

    The article goes on to list other examples in which dehumanization has occurred, like the genocide of Indians as an inferior 'race' and how dehumanization produced "rape, starvation, enslavement, allocation, and germ warfare" along with this murder.

    The article also describes how language is used to dehumanize a group, as is done with the unborn.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization

    ***

    Some steps in dehumanizing people in Germany:

    "The Law for the Prevention of Genetically Defective Progeny was passed on 14 July 1933, which legalized the involuntary sterilization of persons with diseases claimed to be hereditary: weak-mindedness, schizophrenia, alcohol abuse, insanity, blindness, deafness, and physical deformities. The law was used to encourage growth of the Aryan race through the sterilization of persons who fell under the quota of being genetically defective.[27] 1% of citizens between the age of 17 to 24 had been sterilized within 2 years of the law passing.
    Within 4 years, 300,000 patients had been sterilized.

    From about March 1941 to about January 1945, sterilization experiments were conducted at Auschwitz, Ravensbrück, and other places by Dr. Carl Clauberg. The purpose of these experiments was to develop a method of sterilization which would be suitable for sterilizing millions of people with a minimum of time and effort. These experiments were conducted by means of X-ray, surgery and various drugs. Thousands of victims were sterilized. Aside from its experimentation, the Nazi government sterilized around 400,000 people as part of its compulsory sterilization program."


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_h...xperimentation

    ***

    "To kill people without compassion is cruel, but to murder innocent infants who are new to the world, that is beyond cruelty, that is having no human regard toward the people you are murdering."

    That excerpt is on holocaust dehumanization with descriptions from a Jew, Elie Wiesel, who witnessed this dehumanization:

    http://holocaustdehumanization.weebly.com/

    ***

    Likewise, cruel killing (murder) is happening to the unborn with no regard to their status as human beings. The most defenseless of all human beings is cruelly killed, as these defenseless humans have been dehumanized and devalued by societies.

    ***

    "During the Holocaust, Nazis referred to Jews as rats. Hutus involved in the Rwanda genocide called Tutsis cockroaches. Slave owners throughout history considered slaves subhuman animals. In Less Than Human, David Livingstone Smith argues that it's important to define and describe dehumanization, because it's what opens the door for cruelty and genocide."

    https://www.npr.org/2011/03/29/13495...ess-than-human.

    ***

    "Abolish Human Abortion" is a site that argues against the dehumanization of the unborn by showing comparisons with slaves, and had this to say:

    "At the root of all terminologies of oppression is a denial of humanity which seeks to justify the deprivation of the God-given rights of a particular group of humans."

    You, Mican, have said the unborn is human. You justify its lack of worth in comparison to the born by stating it is legal to kill the unborn (possibly up to a specific timeframe of their existence). Legislating humans as less than they are is exactly what the US did with the slave:

    This foundational belief or assertion supported both the legal justification of human slavery and now abortion. Consider the Supreme Court of the United States' wording on slavery and abortion:

    “A SUBORDINATE AND INFERIOR
    CLASS OF BEINGS”
    (US Supreme Court decision, 1857. Dred Scott v. Stanford)

    The Supreme Court of the United States similarly declared the unborn as a deficient class of human beings when Roe v. Wade declared them to be only “potential” humans.


    “THE FETUS, AT MOST, REPRESENTS
    ONLY THE POTENTIALITY OF LIFE.”
    (US Supreme Court decision, 1973. Roe v. Wade)

    ???

    http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com...ation-101.html

    ***

    Consider the UN Univeral Declaration of Human Rights (that is not followed in the case of the unborn):

    Article 1.
    All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

    What happened to the unborn. It is a human being too.

    Article 3.

    Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

    Not the unborn human being.

    Article 5.

    No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

    Have you ever seen an abortion? I supplied the link. It is cruel and inhuman.

    http://www.un.org/en/universal-decla...hts/index.html

    ***

    Dr. William Brennan wrote a book titled, "Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives."

    https://www.amazon.ca/Dehumanizing-V.../dp/0919225195

    http://www.theinterim.com/issues/abo...es-take-lives/

    These semantic word games you are using by questioning what I mean by human and human being is, IMO, just such a shell game.

    "Semantic gymnastics is an exceedingly apt term because it connotes the severe twisting and distorting of language necessary to deny fundamental scientific facts, which include the facts that human life exists before birth and that abortion kills human lives in the womb." — William Brennan, Ph.D.

    http://www.issues4life.org/blast/2011290.html

    Planned Parenthood and many abortion rights groups vilify pro-life positions as hate speech against womanhood and feminism (the woman's right to choose). They classify conservative thought as backward and intolerant all the while they spread the lie by their very intolerance of conservative positions while shutting it down on college and university campuses. What they are doing is censoring what people hear and believe, just like the Nazis did leading up to and during WWII.

    ***

    Read the 1943 SS booklet on racial theory (copyrighted, so I condensed and modified the article to give a shell of what is said, but you can read it under the link to get the fuller perspective of the German propaganda machine).

    The article alleges that humanity is unequal, that a 'race mixing' declines in its racial quality. It propagates that 'equality is an error' and such thought is a lie. The solution put forth is 'destroying Jewry' to rectify Europe's decline and fall. It purports to guard the European peoples and their innocence against mixing with Jews, forbidding marriage with Jews. The article sees the Jewish question as a racial question that Hitler is helping the German people to understand that the Nordic race is the most valuable race of people on earth.

    The source: Der Reichsführer SS/SS-Hauptamt, Rassenpolitik (Berlin, 1943 [?]).

    http://research.calvin.edu/german-pr...e/rassenpo.htm

    Again, here is the idea that not all humans are of equal worth held by the Nazis, just like society has the same idea regarding unborns.

    ***

    Read some of this propaganda from this site to see how the Jew was more and more vilified, with Hitler, then with articles in 1927-28 by Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda, and the National Socialist Party. The literature got more and more radical as the war progressed which led to the Nazi death camps and horrific acts of violence. The Jew was villainized as an international conspirator in undermining the values of the world. Hitler aimed to stamp this conspirator out across Europe.

    ***
    Robert Ley, Pesthauch der Welt (Dresden: Franz Müller Verlag, 1944).

    http://research.calvin.edu/german-pr.../pesthauch.htm

    Here is a sample of the Nazi propaganda war machine language ("a full translation of a particularly nasty Nazi anti-Semitic book published late in the war") used to describe the Jew in 1944 - parasite, deprived and criminal, a liar, the result of disease, arrogant, stupid, creates a bad environment, and inheritance, corrupt, the trash and scum of humanity, a destroyer of beauty, an ugly Jewish face, destroyer of human culture and ethnic unity, a hypocrite, weak, diseased, an enemy, must die so humanity can live.

    ***
    http://research.calvin.edu/german-pr...ra.htm#Antisem

    ***

    By educating people on a particular thought pattern, you change or influence the way that the culture views that issue. Hitler and the Nazi Party understood that if you control the media, the educational systems, thus, the youth, the gatekeepers of society, you largely control what the people believe. Such is the case with Western Society today on abortion. It is somewhat controlled by a liberal, leftist, semi-socialist worldview and model of thought that puts little worth on a particular class of human beings - the unborn.

    The comparisons between words used to dehumanize by the Nazi and words used to dehumanize the unborn has been documented:

    "In 1943, Himmler referred to the killing of Jews as having “exterminated a germ,” and abortion advocate Natalie Shainess justifies abortion by claiming that the unwanted pregnancy is merely “an alien germ.”
    Former Auschwitz physician Dr. Fritz Klein made the analogy between the massacre of Jews and “a good doctor” who “takes a scalpel and removes an appendix full of pus.” He went on to say, “The Jews are the pus-filled appendix in the body of Europe.” Similarly, abortion advocate Dr. Alan Guttmacher likened the destruction of the fetus to “operating on an appendix or removing a gangrenous bowel.”
    Under the Nazi regime, the term “special treatment” was used euphemistically for Jews and others to be exterminated. Today, the medical establishment (AMA, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc.) refers to abortion as the physicians duty “to provide care and treatment” for unwanted pregnancies.
    Block 20 at Auschwitz, where “experiments” were “terminated” with a lethal injection of phenol to the heart, was known by both inmates and doctors as the “treatment room.” The room in abortion clinics where the abortion is actually committed is commonly known as the “procedure room.”


    http://www.klannedparenthood.com/naz...king-the-talk/

    ***

    Compare the ideology of Hitler with Margret Sanger:

    Hitler:

    http://www.klannedparenthood.com/naz...as-pro-choice/

    Margret Sanger:

    http://www.klannedparenthood.com/naz...rgaret-sanger/

    ***

    Read about Racial Targeting in a population:

    http://www.klannedparenthood.com/wp-...on-Control.pdf

    More dehumanizing of babies in groups of people:

    http://www.blackgenocide.org/abortion.html

    More dehumanizing language:

    http://priestsforlife.org/lte/lte25.html

    Now, tell me that 1) the unborn is not a human being, 2) the unborn is not devalued, just like other undesirable groups of human beings in societies have been devalued. Tell me that what is happening with abortion today - the gretest genocide of a human group in the history of the world to date (and that on the most vulnerable and defenseless) is not what the Nazis did with the Jews and others, to the tune of approximately 11 million undesirables murdered.

    Peter
    Last edited by PGA2; November 27th, 2017 at 11:20 PM. Reason: Grammar

  13. #71
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Yes, human DNA from a male and female human combine to create a separate, individual, human being. I'm puzzled over what is so difficult to understand about this.
    I'm just asking you to define your terms so I know exactly what you mean when you say "human being".

    So I will define "Human Being" and if you object to it, then make the necessary alterations to correspond to what you mean when you use the term.

    "A living organism that has a unique set of human DNA". This definition is a very accurate description of what exists at the moment of conception.

    And a relevant subset of human beings are those that are born and those that are unborn. While one can say that they are both human beings, it is clear that they have a difference and it's a difference that allows them to be treated unequally under the law.

    So I acknowledge both the similarity and the difference of the born and unborn and hold that whether they should be treated differently is a matter of opinion.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Typical usage - I already laid that out. When I speak of the unborn, I see no difference in its NATURE than I do of any other human being, other than being less developed, smaller in size, and dependent on another human being for its existence. I also see the newborn as less developed than other human beings, smaller, and dependent on another human being for its existence.

    I pumped you on what you meant at various times through our discourse, for I got the distinct feeling from the start, judging by your wording, and your objections, that the unborn was being degraded.

    I provided textbook definitions and included what professionals in the field of biology and embryology had to say regarding the unborn (at conception).

    You presented scenarios and opinions that suggest its human worth as demoted.
    Well, the pro-choice clearly does hold that the unborn are not as valuable as the born. And I understand that you hold a different view. But just explaining your view and the view of the "other side" does not support that your view is better than theirs.

    And if fact, MOST pro-lifers don't view the unborn and born as completely equal in value. As I showed in my previous post, that while roughly 45% of people view themselves as pro-life, under 20% think that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. I'm guessing those pro-lifers who aren't in the "all circumstances" category are generally against legalized abortion but feel that some compromise, like in the case of rape and incest, are valid. But then even those compromises shows that they do not value the born and the unborn the same for they certainly would not be for allowing people who are born of rape or incest to be killed.

    So really, the view that the born and unborn are of completely equal value is a pretty rare view - at best no more than 20% of people feel that way. That doesn't mean that your viewpoint is wrong but if you are going to show that it is objectively right, you will need to do more than just tell me what you think.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    The pro-choice position does not acknowledge that life as valuable as other human life. They push another narrative.
    We can't kill a newborn who is human, but we can kill an unborn who is human. How is that not losing the intrinsic value of a human being?
    Losing value means that value decreases from a previous state. I don't see how having different standards for two different things means that the category that they both belong to (human being) loses any value.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    So, one class of human beings has been devalued by society. That is the issue with abortion. You don't see people legally killing born human beings in the millions and billions, merely because they choose to, and that without moral outrage.

    Why is that? I contend that it is because society has made the unborns life cheap like Hilter made the Jews life inferior.
    If you mean that society holds the unborn as lesser value than the born, you are right. And if you want to say that that is so immoral, we need to have new laws to rectify that, I acknowledge your viewpoint. And when you support that viewpoint (which means presenting something that will convince someone who doesn't already agree with you), I will respond to it.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If the unborn do not have equal legal rights to LIFE, they do not have the same intrinsic worth. The unborn, at conception has its humanness downgraded. You agree that human life is intrinsically valuable, then you deny that the unborn should have the legal right to this value of life.

    You also conflate an unfertilized egg as equal with a fertilized egg. They are not the same. One is a unique, distinct human being. The other is part of an already living human being - the woman.
    I conflate them because they BOTH have intrinsic value. I don't say that they are the same - they are two different things that both have intrinsic value. And one is more valuable than the other but again, they BOTH have value. But just having value does not mean that it has the same value as something else that has value.

    But I suppose the problem is that you are using an imprecise term with "intrinsic value". I am interpreting it as meaning that something that has undeniable value and by that definition, unfertilized human eggs have "intrinsic" value for one cannot deny that they are essential for the continued existence of the human race. But going by your objection to me applying it to unfertilized eggs, you don't agree with my usage. So I don't know what you mean by the term.

    So what is the criteria for something having "intrinsic value"?

    And what does it mean for that something if it has "intrinsic value"?

    Until this is clarified, the term is too imprecise for use in this debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If the unborn is a human being, it should have the same value any other human being has.
    Your opinion is noted.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If it does not, then you get into situations like Nazi Germany when the intrinsic value of a human being is downplayed by making it LESS than what it is. What happened in Nazi Germany is EXACTLY what is done with the unborn human being.
    You are smuggling the premise that the unborn's value is being made less than what it is. You will need to support that premise before it can be use




    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Not true? So I can kill an innocent human being!!! You seem to think that because something is law that it makes it right. I will document a few cases later and see what you think.

    No. It is always wrong to take an innocent human life without proper justification.
    You have in no way rebutted what I said. I didn't say that lawful killings are uniformly alright. I'm saying that legal killings are not murder. And they are not - BY DEFINITION.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    You would not be doing the same thing with the born human being. Why can you legislate a human being out of existence before birth but not after birth?
    That's a question, not an argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    It is not OPINION that the unborn is a human being. If you think this, then it is a fatal flaw in your thinking, for the unborn is a human being. You even stated as much.
    But it is an OPINION that an unborn human being should have the same legal protections as a born human being. In fact, at most 20% of Americans hold that opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Would your argument for killing the unborn also work for the born? YOU MUST assume the unborn is something less than human because you freely justify it being killed. You would not infer the same fate with the newborn or any other innocent human being, would you?
    The pro-choice view is that the unborn are humans that don't have the same right to life as a born human. So no, they would not infer that what goes for the unborn goes for the born.




    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I'm not equivocating on human beings or human value.

    That is the total of what a human is to you - having human DNA. If so, then there is no difference between a born and unborn human being. But you continually suggest there is a difference. Please, state the differences.
    The born are born and the unborn are not born. That is a difference. The significance of this difference is a matter of opinion on both sides of the abortion issue


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I don't understand what is so difficult to comprehend.

    Unborn human beings are being devalued and dehumanized.

    The Nazis segregated the Jews. Through their propaganda machine and evolutionary thinking, they dehumanized blacks, the unborn, the sickly, the deformed. They reasoned that some members of the human family were different or had not evolved to the same level as others, so they justified killing them.

    I will demonstrate that once a class of humans is devalued, it can lead to their death, primarily by citing Nazi Germany as the example. I could also show exploitation with Apartheid in South Africa, or many other cases, once a group is dehumanized.
    Well, correlation is not causation.

    But I certainly will not challenge the assertion that holding the the unborn are of lesser value than the born plays a part in the legal killing of the unborn. Likewise I will not challenge the assertion that Nazis holding that the Jews are of lesser value played a part in the holocaust.

    But what I am challenging is the assertion that holding the the unborn are of lesser value than the born plays a part in killing born people.

    I don't really see anything below that supports this so I have no rebuttal to any of that. Yes, dehumanizing a group of people endangers THOSE PEOPLE, but you've shown no evidence that dehumanizing the unborn presents any danger to born people


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I will try to show how the unborn has been devalued in the propaganda mills of Western Society with similar language and legislature as Nazi Germany did with the Jew.
    Why? Doing so does not support that allowing abortion "opens the door" to devaluing born humans and therefore does not support what I'm challenging you to support.

    And what's below doesn't seem to support that devaluing the unborn leads to the devaluing of the born, so I'm not going to respond to it.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Now, tell me that 1) the unborn is not a human being, 2) the unborn is not devalued, just like other undesirable groups of human beings in societies have been devalued. Tell me that what is happening with abortion today - the gretest genocide of a human group in the history of the world to date (and that on the most vulnerable and defenseless) is not what the Nazis did with the Jews and others, to the tune of approximately 11 million undesirables murdered.
    Of course that is based on the smuggled premise that the unborn are deserving of a legal right to life. Until that premise is supported, any arguments based on it fail for lack of support.

  14. #72
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I disagree. I did not quibble on the word that you used. Let's look at what I said again:

    So forget the word "person" or specific terms. What specifically is it about the milestone of conception that you hold grants one the right to life? Just being able to semantically apply a word like "person" to something does not mean that one has such a right.

    So I'm not saying that this word or that word is right or wrong. I'm saying that applying ANY word to the unborn does not grant it the legal right to life. So go ahead and call it a "person" if you want. But if you are going to make the case that an unborn person is entitled to the legal right to life, you will need to explain why that is the case and just applying words like "person" does not do that.

    So okay. It's a "person". I never said you can't or should not use that word. Now explain why an unborn "person" is entitled to a legal right to life.
    Because a "person's" (kinda "that" which makes Mican "intrinsically valuable/a legal human being/etc) life is protected by law. And that/those laws don't have a criteria about "born". So since at conception (Mican "came to be"), why should your mother be able to kill you at her choosing prior to birth (of course only her "doctor" "gets" to kill you, no one else can because that is murder?!?!?)
    (and what of the Hippocratic oath of "do know harm")?.

    A "person's" life has a beginning clear to the end, yes?

  15. #73
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Because a "person's" (kinda "that" which makes Mican "intrinsically valuable/a legal human being/etc) life is protected by law.
    Since your definition of "person" includes those that are not yet born and therefore aren't fully protected by law, that answer is incorrect.

    We can clearly see that the law does not protect unborn "persons". You can argue that the law should protect them but we can observe that the law currently doesn't protect them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And that/those laws don't have a criteria about "born".
    The laws themselves suggest otherwise. The born are clearly more protected than the unborn.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    So since at conception (Mican "came to be"), why should your mother be able to kill you at her choosing prior to birth (of course only her "doctor" "gets" to kill you, no one else can because that is murder?!?!?)
    Actually, it's not legally murder for someone else to kill a fetus. I do recognize that SOME states have fetal homicide laws so it can be unlawful for someone to kill a fetus but they are not charged with "murder".

    And asking why "should" something be allowed is a question, not an argument. Besides that, I've covered the reasoning for legal abortion so this question has been answered already.

    But what neither of us has presented is an objective reason for granting an unborn "person" the legal right to life. What is it about a "person" that gives both a born and unborn "person" the right to life? If one can give an objective answer to that question, they have an objective reason to outlaw abortion which may override any reasoning for allowing abortion. But I haven't heard an objective reason yet.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    (and what of the Hippocratic oath of "do know harm")?.
    It applies to those who have a right to life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    A "person's" life has a beginning clear to the end, yes?
    Yes. But they do not have the legal right to life at all stages of development and no one has given an objective reason why they should.

    Can you give one?
    Last edited by mican333; November 30th, 2017 at 09:48 AM.

  16. #74
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since your definition of "person" includes those that are not yet born and therefore aren't fully protected by law, that answer is incorrect.

    We can clearly see that the law does not protect unborn "persons". You can argue that the law should protect them but we can observe that the law currently doesn't protect them.

    No kidding, abortion is currently legal?.....
    We have discussed this before and the answer is still so?

    So, basically, any current law is beyond reproach? And I thought we were discussing what the law should be and/or why?

    ---------- Post added at 05:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And asking why "should" something be allowed is a question, not an argument. Besides that, I've covered the reasoning for legal abortion so this question has been answered already.
    ALL you have said is related to "privacy". Unfortunately the doctor/patient privacy issue you refer to, is solely about the mothers health, not about the taking of another person's life. Since I am discussing abortion as a primary birth control the mothers health is not really in question, as I am only discussing pregnancies that do not endanger the mother's life (you know, the vast majority of all pregnancies).

    ---------- Post added at 05:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Yes. But they do not have the legal right to life at all stages of development and no one has given an objective reason why they should.

    Can you give one?
    Once again, you have this ass/backwards. If a human life has a legal right to life at ANY time, the onus is on those that say why it should not enjoy that right the rest of the time.

    My point is once you are alive, the ability of others to kill you should be severely limited. Seems fairly objective.

    Your point, once your are alive, you have to be alive a certain amount of time before there should be limits on killing you (as in late term abortions). Seems the definition of subjective.

  17. #75
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    No kidding, abortion is currently legal?.....
    We have discussed this before and the answer is still so?

    So, basically, any current law is beyond reproach? And I thought we were discussing what the law should be and/or why?
    I'm responding to the statement you made, which was:

    "Because a "person's" (kinda "that" which makes Mican "intrinsically valuable/a legal human being/etc) life is protected by law."

    You said a person's life (which includes the unborn going by the agreed-upon definition of "person) is protected by the law and that statement is not true. An unborn person's life is NOT protected by the law.

    I can only respond to the arguments you make.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    ALL you have said is related to "privacy". Unfortunately the doctor/patient privacy issue you refer to, is solely about the mothers health, not about the taking of another person's life. Since I am discussing abortion as a primary birth control the mothers health is not really in question, as I am only discussing pregnancies that do not endanger the mother's life (you know, the vast majority of all pregnancies).
    ALL medical decisions fall under the right to privacy. So why the woman is having a doctor perform an abortion on her is irrelevant to whether it's covered under the right to privacy. In other words, it's nobody else' business what she's doing and why she's doing it - that's privacy.

    And of course if it is ruled that the unborn have the right to life and this overrides a woman's right to privacy (which it would), then likewise the right to privacy does not apply at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Once again, you have this ass/backwards. If a human life has a legal right to life at ANY time, the onus is on those that say why it should not enjoy that right the rest of the time.
    But then currently a human life does NOT have the legal right to life at any time (I'm not justifying the law but just pointing out what the law is). And if one is to argue that a human life should attain the legal right to life upon conception, then the onus is on that person to support that argument.

    So no, I don't have it backwards. You are making and argument and I'm asking you to support it. At ODN, the original burden is always on the person who makes the original argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    My point is once you are alive, the ability of others to kill you should be severely limited. Seems fairly objective.
    No. That is a subjective statement. You have backed it up with nothing more than your opinion that this should be the case.

    Objective statements are factual statements and therefore a person's opinion plays no part in it. If you can make an argument against abortion without involving your opinion, then you have made an objective argument against abortion. I have yet to see that from you or anyone.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Your point, once your are alive, you have to be alive a certain amount of time before there should be limits on killing you (as in late term abortions). Seems the definition of subjective.
    I see no basis to say that one point for when abortion should be allowed is any more or less objective than another.

    The difference is that I'm admitting that the pro-choice side is subjective and you aren't admitting that the pro-life side is objective as well.

    And again, I'm not arguing for the pro-choice side. My argument is that BOTH sides are subjective and you have yet to show me any evidence that I'm wrong about this.
    Last edited by mican333; November 30th, 2017 at 06:45 PM.

  18. #76
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And of course if it is ruled that the unborn have the right to life and this overrides a woman's right to privacy (which it would), then likewise the right to privacy does not apply at all.


    Here we have agreement.

  19. #77
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    91
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    [QUOTE=PGA2]Yes, human DNA from a male and female human combine to create a separate, individual, human being. I'm puzzled over what is so difficult to understand about this.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm just asking you to define your terms, so I know exactly what you mean when you say "human being."
    I did define my terms until I was blue in the face.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So I will define "Human Being" and if you object to it, then make the necessary alterations to correspond to what you mean when you use the term.

    "A living organism that has a unique set of human DNA". This definition is a very accurate description of what exists at the moment of conception.
    Okay, fine. I already added more to that definition in my last post.

    The unborn fits this definition of yours (a unique set of human DNA from father and mother that makes it a separate and distinct human being) just as much as a newborn of adult human being does. The newborn and adult also have human DNA. We don't kill the newborn, nor the adult. We kill the unborn.

    I'm asking you, for the sake of discussion, and since you have opposed my viewpoint, what makes the unborn less of a human being that the born human being, since we do not take the life of the newborn or an adult human being by choosing to do so. If a woman decided to take the life of her newborn for the same reasons she decided to take the life of her unborn, she would be accused of murder.

    Do you have an answer? You told me you were playing devil's advocate, yet I see evidence as to what you believe. I'm interested in seeing how you defend the position you have taken, and you say you believe in Pro-choice (i.e., Any prevalent American social issue - "I'm on the pro-choice side" - Post 6). You continually push the defense solely on me for everything said. Defend your position. You have stated you are pro-choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And a relevant subset of human beings are those that are born and those that are unborn. While one can say that they are both human beings, it is clear that they have a difference and it's a difference that allows them to be treated unequally under the law.
    Subset??? They are ALL human beings by the very definition you gave - having human DNA.

    The differences make neither less of a human being. The difference SHOULD NOT make them unequal. How are they unequal as human beings? They are both undeveloped, just to different degrees. They are both small and dependent on the mother. The only difference is their location.

    Is there something you KNOW about their humanity (or lack thereof) that I do not know?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So I acknowledge both the similarity and the difference between the born and unborn and hold that whether they should be treated differently is a matter of opinion.
    Opinion? Why don't you treat the newborn as equal or less than the unborn and take its life since it is just a matter of opinion to you.

    What differences are you referencing? If it all boils down to a matter of opinion, then shall we get rid of those who disagree with our views because that is what is happening with the unborn human being. It is inconvenient. People choose to kill it on a matter of opinion, according to your thoughts here. Hitler decided to kill the Jews because it was his opinion that they were not as valuable as his 'race' of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Typical usage - I already laid that out. When I speak of the unborn, I see no difference in its NATURE than I do of any other human being, other than being less developed, smaller in size, and dependent on another human being for its existence. I also see the newborn as less developed than other human beings, smaller, and dependent on another human being for its existence.

    I pumped you on what you meant at various times through our discourse, for I got the distinct feeling from the start, judging by your wording, and your objections, that the unborn was being degraded.

    I provided textbook definitions and included what professionals in the field of biology and embryology had to say regarding the unborn (at conception).
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You presented scenarios and opinions that suggest its human worth as demoted.
    Suggested demotion??? It is demoted.

    I did not present 'scenarios' when I listed text after text that defined the unborn as a human being. The human individually begins at conception, a distinct and unique human being, per scientific analysis.

    Please, someone else chime in on this. I did not suggest. I gave the facts.

    It is a FACT that it is a human being. I can provide text after text that acknowledges this. What, to your mind, makes it less of a human being than any other human being? Whatever it is, it gives a woman the right to kill the unborn but not her newborn. She treats the one life as valuable and the other as disposable?

    "Living things do not become entirely different creatures in the process of changing their form,...Rather, they develop according to a certain physical pattern precisely because of the kind of being they already are." - Greg Koukle, per Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life, p. 37.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, the pro-choice clearly does hold that the unborn are not as valuable as the born. And I understand that you hold a different view. But just explaining your view and the view of the "other side" does not support that your view is better than theirs.
    I did more than explain my view; I gave justification that the unborn is as much of a human being as any other human being and to kill it devalues the worth of a whole class of human beings - the unborn.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And if fact, MOST pro-lifers don't view the unborn and born as completely equal in value. As I showed in my previous post, that while roughly 45% of people view themselves as pro-life, under 20% think that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. I'm guessing those pro-lifers who aren't in the "all circumstances" category are generally against legalized abortion but feel that some compromise, like in the case of rape and incest, are valid. But then even those compromises shows that they do not value the born and the unborn the same for they certainly would not be for allowing people who are born of rape or incest to be killed.
    It brings into question who is right. Majority does not necessarily mean 'right.'

    There is ONE circumstance in which I will agree in which abortion is allowable. That is when the life of the mother is at stake, which would also result in terminating the life of the unborn and the unborn cannot be saved because of its stage of development.

    ***

    Funny how who's in power influences the abortion rate, isn't it?

    "The pro-choice view is not as prevalent among Americans as it was in the mid-1990s, but the momentum for the pro-life position that began when Barack Obama took office has yielded to a pro-choice rebound. That rebound has essentially restored views to where they were in 2008; today's views are also similar to those found in 2001. Some of the variation in public views on abortion over time coincides with political and cultural events that may have helped shape public opinion on the issue, including instances of anti-abortion violence, legislative efforts to ban "partial-birth abortion" or limit abortion funding, and certain Supreme Court cases."

    Under Obama, the pro-choice view became the one that got the most coverage, even though pro-lifers fought against the Obama policy. He pushed the Pro-choice view to the gullible.

    http://news.gallup.com/poll/183434/a...ven-years.aspx

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So really, the view that the born and unborn are of completely equal value is a pretty rare view - at best no more than 20% of people feel that way. That doesn't mean that your viewpoint is wrong but if you are going to show that it is objectively right, you will need to do more than just tell me what you think.
    Popular opinion does not make something right, although it might make it legal. I have cited a couple of examples of this - Nazi Germany legislating laws regarding Jews and the US on slavery. Were they 'right'? The language is similar to that used for abortion.

    Here is the slavery example again:

    "Supreme Court of the United States' wording on slavery and abortion:

    “A SUBORDINATE AND INFERIOR
    CLASS OF BEINGS”
    (US Supreme Court decision, 1857. Dred Scott v. Stanford)

    The Supreme Court of the United States similarly declared the unborn as a deficient class of human beings when Roe v. Wade declared them to be only “potential” humans.


    “THE FETUS, AT MOST, REPRESENTS
    ONLY THE POTENTIALITY OF LIFE.”
    (US Supreme Court decision, 1973. Roe v. Wade)"

    The 'fetus' is not potential life; it is living, and it is a human being.

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    The pro-choice position does not acknowledge that life as valuable as other human life. They push another narrative.
    We can't kill a newborn who is human, but we can kill an unborn who is human. How is that not losing the intrinsic value of a human being?
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Losing value means that value decreases from a previous state. I don't see how having different standards for two different things means that the category that they both belong to (human being) loses any value.
    All humans have the same value of being human. If you believe otherwise, then you are dehumanizing a human being. When you discriminate against one group, you subtract from the value it inherently has.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    So, one class of human beings has been devalued by society. That is the issue with abortion. You don't see people legally killing born human beings in the millions and billions, merely because they choose to, and that without moral outrage.

    Why is that? I contend that it is because society has made the unborns life cheap like Hilter made the Jews life inferior.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If you mean that society holds the unborn as lesser value than the born, you are right. And if you want to say that that is so immoral, we need to have new laws to rectify that, I acknowledge your viewpoint. And when you support that viewpoint (which means presenting something that will convince someone who doesn't already agree with you), I will respond to it.
    I already have. I have presented factual information.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    If the unborn do not have equal legal rights to LIFE, they do not have the same intrinsic worth. The unborn, at conception has its humanness downgraded. You agree that human life is intrinsically valuable, then you deny that the unborn should have the legal right to this value of life.

    You also conflate an unfertilized egg as equal with a fertilized egg. They are not the same. One is a unique, distinct human being. The other is part of an already living human being - the woman.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I conflate them because they BOTH have intrinsic value. I don't say that they are the same - they are two different things that both have intrinsic value. And one is more valuable than the other but again, they BOTH have value. But just having value does not mean that it has the same value as something else that has value.
    I agree that they both have intrinsic value, but I see the unborn as having more value because when you destroy it, you are taking a human life, the life of an individual LIVING BEING as opposed to living cells that belong to the woman. An egg is not a human being; neither is sperm. They are required to create a human being but killing an egg does not kill a human being. A human being is a human being regardless of how you group it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But I suppose the problem is that you are using an imprecise term with "intrinsic value". I am interpreting it as meaning that something that has undeniable value and by that definition, unfertilized human eggs have "intrinsic" value for one cannot deny that they are essential for the continued existence of the human race. But going by your objection to me applying it to unfertilized eggs, you don't agree with my usage. So I don't know what you mean by the term.
    "the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.”

    "that something is valuable for its own sake"

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/v...sic-extrinsic/

    MERRIAM-WEBSTER
    1
    a : belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic

    If you say that a human being has intrinsic worth because of what it is, then you can't justify taking one innocent life over another. If you do so, then one human life is no more valuable than another.

    Once you say a human being does not have intrinsic worth because of what it is, then you open the door to devalue any human life.

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So what is the criteria for something having "intrinsic value"?
    Whether or not it has value in and of itself. If you don't think human beings have value, then their life is cheap. It doesn't matter if we kill them. ("You're next!" That is when it matters)

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And what does it mean for that something if it has "intrinsic value"?
    It means it has value for what it is - a human being.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Until this is clarified, the term is too imprecise for use in this debate.
    Again, this is another semantic word game.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    If the unborn is a human being, it should have the same value any other human being has.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Your opinion is noted.
    I use the 'if' for those who think otherwise. I do not doubt that the human being is valuable because of what it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    If it does not, then you get into situations like Nazi Germany when the intrinsic value of a human being is downplayed by making it LESS than what it is. What happened in Nazi Germany is EXACTLY what is done with the unborn human being.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You are smuggling the premise that the unborn's value is being made less than what it is. You will need to support that premise before it can be use
    Is the unborn a human being? Is it being killed?
    Is the newborn a human being? Is it being killed?
    One is valued above the other.

    Now, away with rhetorical questions. You already admitted that the unborn is being devalued by society.

    "While one can say that they are both human beings, it is clear that they have a difference and it's a difference that allows them to be treated unequally under the law."
    What difference is that which you mention, to get to the heart of the matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Not true? So I can kill an innocent human being!!! You seem to think that because something is law that it makes it right. I will document a few cases later and see what you think.

    No. It is always wrong to take an innocent human life without proper justification.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You have in no way rebutted what I said. I didn't say that lawful killings are uniformly alright. I'm saying that legal killings are not murder. And they are not - BY DEFINITION.
    Yes, they are if the being is a human being.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    You would not be doing the same thing with the born human being. Why can you legislate a human being out of existence before birth but not after birth?
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's a question, not an argument.
    Okay, the human being is being legislated out of existence before birth, but not after birth. It is just as human as the born, thus, it is being devalued and dehumanized by society.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    It is not OPINION that the unborn is a human being. If you think this, then it is a fatal flaw in your thinking, for the unborn is a human being. You even stated as much.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But it is an OPINION that an unborn human being should have the same legal protections as a born human being. In fact, at most 20% of Americans hold that opinion.
    Until you can prove that there is a difference in the level of humanness it is a fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Would your argument for killing the unborn also work for the born? YOU MUST assume the unborn is something less than human because you freely justify it being killed. You would not infer the same fate with the newborn or any other innocent human being, would you?
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The pro-choice view is that the unborn are humans that don't have the same right to life as a born human. So no, they would not infer that what goes for the unborn goes for the born.
    The pro-choice view is your view, per Post 6, so you have a bias towards such a position. You are not neutral. You think pro-choice is more rational (perhaps) than my pro-life view. If you don't think it is, then it is a mystery to me why you would hold such a view.

    I would find it refreshing if you represented your view (or are you expressing your view?), not a devil's advocate view that is totally pro-choice in its argumentation.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I'm not equivocating on human beings or human value.

    That is the total of what a human is to you - having human DNA. If so, then there is no difference between a born and unborn human being. But you continually suggest there is a difference. Please, state the differences.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The born are born and the unborn are not born. That is a difference. The significance of this difference is a matter of opinion on both sides of the abortion issue
    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I don't understand what is so difficult to comprehend.

    Unborn human beings are being devalued and dehumanized.

    The Nazis segregated the Jews. Through their propaganda machine and evolutionary thinking, they dehumanized blacks, the unborn, the sickly, the deformed. They reasoned that some members of the human family were different or had not evolved to the same level as others, so they justified killing them.

    I will demonstrate that once a class of humans is devalued, it can lead to their death, primarily by citing Nazi Germany as the example. I could also show exploitation with Apartheid in South Africa, or many other cases, once a group is dehumanized.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, correlation is not causation.

    But I certainly will not challenge the assertion that holding the the unborn are of lesser value than the born plays a part in the legal killing of the unborn. Likewise I will not challenge the assertion that Nazis holding that the Jews are of lesser value played a part in the holocaust.
    I believe the causation is a result of the devaluing of human beings. When the human worth of a human being is devalued, it has led to exploitation throughout cultures of this world.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But what I am challenging is the assertion that holding the the unborn are of lesser value than the born plays a part in killing born people.

    I don't really see anything below that supports this so I have no rebuttal to any of that. Yes, dehumanizing a group of people endangers THOSE PEOPLE, but you've shown no evidence that dehumanizing the unborn presents any danger to born people
    Is the unborn human being killed (murdered)? Yes.

    'Presents no danger to the born' but it is not the born who are being killed by choice of the women in the millions every year. I'm not advocating for the born but for the unborn because of the injustice witnessed to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I will try to show how the unborn has been devalued in the propaganda mills of Western Society with similar language and legislature as Nazi Germany did with the Jew.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Why? [1] Doing so does not support that allowing abortion "opens the door" to devaluing born humans and therefore does not support what I'm challenging you to support.

    [2] And what's below doesn't seem to support that devaluing the unborn leads to the devaluing of the born, so I'm not going to respond to it.
    [1] Again, I have explained this a number of times; the fact is that human beings are being killed (murdered) because they are defenseless and cannot speak up for themselves and very few want to speak up for them.

    [2] You do not recognize it as supporting the dehumanization of the unborn, but surely you recognize that the Nazis devalued and dehumanized the Jew by the same methods, by devaluing a people group? It treated a group of human beings as if they were less valuable by the language used on such a group, to the point where they started killing them in mass numbers. Abortion, until fairly recently (1973), was considered taboo by the US population, and illegal.

    If there is anyone else reading this, do you recognize that the same devaluation is taking place with the unborn?

    There are many influences in the change of view. I documented a limited amount of dehumanization in the Nazi villainy of the Jew. Their leader helped change the opinions of the nation. Their language was loaded with derogatory terms, just like the abortion issue has been. Feminism is a spoke in the wheel that is responsible for the change in the abortion issue. Feminists advocated for the right to own their own bodies, at the expense of the unborn. How was this done? I believe it was done by overvaluing one human being (the woman) over another. The unborn was devalued as a human being.

    When one human being, or group, is not as valued as another human being, or group (and expressed by the media, institutes of higher learning and the political party in power), it influences the whole population on their views of that person or group.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Now, tell me that 1) the unborn is not a human being, 2) the unborn is not devalued, just like other undesirable groups of human beings in societies have been devalued. Tell me that what is happening with abortion today - the gretest genocide of a human group in the history of the world to date (and that on the most vulnerable and defenseless) is not what the Nazis did with the Jews and others, to the tune of approximately 11 million undesirables murdered.
    Of course that is based on the smuggled premise that the unborn are deserving of a legal right to life. Until that premise is supported, any arguments based on it fail for lack of support.
    You keep denying that I have supported it. I went to elaborate lengths to back it, and you dismissed the whole argument. I laid down how when human beings are devalued and dehumanized by society the view of that human being, or group of beings influences the way society views the being, or group of beings, up to and including killing them, but certainly to the point of devaluing them. It happened in South Africa under Apartheid. It happened in India under the Caste System. It happened in the USA under slavery. It happened in Germany under the Nazis. It happened in Rwanda with the genocide against the Tutsi by the Hutu. It happened under evolutionary doctrine in the Soviet Union with Stalin, the Cultural Revolution with Moa, and the abortion issue worldwide. These are just a tiny sampling of this dehumanization.

    Peter

 

 
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Similar Threads

  1. List of Suggested Key Terms on the Great Debate
    By Scotsmanmatt in forum Religion
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: June 12th, 2015, 03:45 PM
  2. Abortion: split from a 1 vs 1 debate
    By CC in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 26th, 2006, 04:37 PM
  3. Debate Mastery: Abortion
    By TheOriginal in forum General Debate
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 20th, 2004, 06:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •