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 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 232
  1. #101
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    So here's where we're at:

    The fetus is a human being in development. This is scientific fact.
    Okay.

    You claim the fetus is not a "person", which is concept only.
    What is it with you?

    Quote what I actually said...and deal with what I actually said...rather than paraphrasing so you doctor it up to suit what you want me to have said.

    Here is what I said:

    Frankly, it is my opinion that a person is not a person until birth. That is an opinion shared by many others...which I showed to be the case with some links. I also recognize that it is a philosophical question that is hotly debated...with some people coming down on one side...and others on the other side.
    Deal with that.

    You make that claim without any support...
    If I have done that in the past...supposing the "it is my opinion" qualifier...I apologize and will refrain from doing so in the future.

    In any case, I offered my opinion on a hotly debated philosophical question...germane to our conversation here.

    And I did offer support...with a link...although I cannot imagine any intelligent person discussing this issue being unaware that the question of when personhood arises is still contested.

    The government of the United States of America, for instance, will not allow personhood to extend to an embryo or a fetus.

    Not sure of what your problem is with that...but it is YOUR problem...not mine.


    ...and use that unsupported claim as the basis for allowing the human being to be killed.
    Once again you are simply deciding a hotly debated philosophical question in a way that allows you to make this outrageous claim that I want to kill human beings...or want to allow others to kill human beings.

    You are allowing your religious beliefs to cloud your thinking in this discussion.

    Not a good idea.

  2. #102
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Frankly, it is my opinion that a person is not a person until birth. That is an opinion shared by many others... Deal with that.
    Supporting a claim by saying others agree is an Ad Populum fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    The government of the United States of America, for instance, will not allow personhood to extend to an embryo or a fetus.
    Argument from Authority fallacy. The US government is not a recognized authority on personhood. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Roe v Wade that third trimester prenatal human beings may not be killed by abortion!

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    You are allowing your religious beliefs to cloud your thinking in this discussion.
    I have not brought religion into this debate. But it is interesting that you rely on weak philosophical concepts while rejecting any hint of religion.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  3. #103
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Supporting a claim by saying others agree is an Ad Populum fallacy.
    Okay. My claim was that “it is my opinion that…” so I will call upon the world's foremost authority on Frank Apisa’s opinions and ask him.

    I call Frank Apisa (or ME, if you prefer) to the stand.

    QUESTION: Frank, are you the world’s foremost authority on Frank Apisa’s opinions.

    RESPONSE: I am indeed. Have been for over 80 years.

    QUESTION: Frank Apisa wrote: “…it is my opinion that a person is not a person until birth.” Do you have any reason to doubt that to be true? Any reason to doubt that to be his opinion.

    RESPONSE: None whatsoever.

    QUESTION: None whatsoever?

    RESPONSE: NONE. In fact, I can verify that Frank Apisa is of the opinion that a person is not a person until birth.


    There you have it.


    Argument from Authority fallacy. The US government is not a recognized authority on personhood.
    Okay, but per your request, I was supporting my contention that my opinion was shared by many others.

    Perfectly permissible under the circumstances.

    And the government of the United States does.

    However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Roe v Wade that third trimester prenatal human beings may not be killed by abortion!
    That is an appeal to authority fallacy, Evensaul. Shame on you.


    I have not brought religion into this debate.
    No you haven't...although it is my opinion that every word you say is dripping with religion.


    But it is interesting that you rely on weak philosophical concepts while rejecting any hint of religion.
    Nothing weak about the philosophical arguments upon which I rely...and, in my opinion, a lot stronger than the mythology upon which you seem to be relying.

    As for “rejecting any hint of religion”…I disagree totally. I’m the one bringing religion into the discussion. YOU are rejecting any hint of religion in it. You are avoiding it. I am saying religion HAS a place in the discussion. You are the one who apparently thinks it doesn't.

    You have been following this thread, right???

  4. #104
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    sorry, haven't followed the thread up to this point.

    The discussion obviously revolves around the idea of person-hood.

    This is an argument for why the unborn should not be denied person-hood.

    First, person-hood should be viewed as an inherent trait to humans. I do not know nor can I conceive of a non person human, other than perhaps a dead human. The unborn are scientifically not "dead" and are the embodiment of the definition of "alive". So we can rule out the one exception as applying to them on those grounds.

    Any other exception must be then based in one of the following categorizes, the list is exhaustive, and I will argue are not relevant to person-hood.

    For those who have heard it before it is called the "S.L.E.D. argument".

    The unborn differ from the born in
    Size
    Level of Development
    Environment (or location)
    Dependency

    None of this factors is relevant to person-hood, and are the basis for all unjust discrimination, in this case the unjust denial of basic human right to life for the unborn.
    This is the overview, and I'm more than willing to get into the particulars.

    @Frank
    Your argument relies on what I would think is the weakest of the tactics used. namely "location" or "environment". You have argued that where a human is is relevant to his person-hood. I can not find the specific quote that I caught from this thread, but it was along the lines that the unborn is not a person until it is born, just as a chicken is not a chicken until it breaks from the egg. Please correct me if I have this impression wrong.

    If location was relevant to being a person, then If I were to kidnap you and thrust you back into some (large) woman's womb, and then kill you. I may be guilty of kidnapping a person, but I would not be guilty of killing a person. Or conversely, if you were never born, but lived to the ripe old age of 100 within your mothers womb, you would never be a "person", even if you had developed to the exact point you are today. As it is said, I could move from here to England and I would not stop being a person, neither does the journey of 8 inches down the birth canal ingrain person-hood by some "magic" force. Location, is not relevant to person-hood.
    ---

    If you are asking me to establish that the unborn are persons, I think we first can dispense with some of the extremes that don't have a practical baring on this discussion. Namely, any part of development that occurs within the first month. The vast majority of women are pregnant for better than a month before they even realize they are pregnant. While I would love to argue against drugs like RU486 and other morning after pills, I would be content at this time to agree and compromise at the point when life is actually detected.
    http://www.babies.sutterhealth.org/b...etaldev-1.html
    For perspective this is about 2 weeks before a heart beat, but very far from the "zygote" stage.

    This is a distinction for convenience and applicability, on principle and per the argument I have offered I will defend "at conception" if you like, though I don't see the utility to answer "who should decide".
    To serve man.

  5. Thanks Belthazor thanked for this post
    Likes PGA2 liked this post
  6. #105
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    @Frank
    Your argument relies on what I would think is the weakest of the tactics used. namely "location" or "environment". You have argued that where a human is is relevant to his person-hood. I can not find the specific quote that I caught from this thread, but it was along the lines that the unborn is not a person until it is born, just as a chicken is not a chicken until it breaks from the egg. Please correct me if I have this impression wrong.
    Yes...you are incorrect...you have the impression wrong.

    Although I may have left the "it is my opinion" out at times, almost any time I discuss this issue, I offer nothing more than my opinion.

    For the record, it IS my opinion that a person is not a person until birth. It is an opinion shared by many...just as the opinion, "from the moment the sperm enters the egg...the result is a person" is shared by many.

    If location was relevant to being a person, then If I were to kidnap you and thrust you back into some (large) woman's womb, and then kill you. I may be guilty of kidnapping a person, but I would not be guilty of killing a person.
    This reminds me of the tavern joke, "I was dragged bloody and crying from a woman's vagina...and have spent the better part of my life trying to work my way back in."

    Other than sharing that sick joke...I have nothing further to offer on this absurd hypothetical.



    Or conversely, if you were never born, but lived to the ripe old age of 100 within your mothers womb, you would never be a "person", even if you had developed to the exact point you are today. As it is said, I could move from here to England and I would not stop being a person, neither does the journey of 8 inches down the birth canal ingrain person-hood by some "magic" force. Location, is not relevant to person-hood.
    I am determined to take you seriously no matter that you post stuff like this. If you could give me a bit of help by easing up on this nonsense, I'd appreciate it.

    If you are asking me to establish that the unborn are persons, I think we first can dispense with some of the extremes that don't have a practical baring on this discussion. Namely, any part of development that occurs within the first month. The vast majority of women are pregnant for better than a month before they even realize they are pregnant. While I would love to argue against drugs like RU486 and other morning after pills, I would be content at this time to agree and compromise at the point when life is actually detected.
    http://www.babies.sutterhealth.org/b...etaldev-1.html
    For perspective this is about 2 weeks before a heart beat, but very far from the "zygote" stage.

    This is a distinction for convenience and applicability, on principle and per the argument I have offered I will defend "at conception" if you like, though I don't see the utility to answer "who should decide".
    Thank you for sharing that. If anyone wants to comment on your opinion here, I'd love to hear it.

  7. #106
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I'm saying the unborn is a human being by nature and it is a fact and I believe it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    The zygote and fetus are not persons, PGA.
    You changed the scope of my statement slightly, switched the discussion from that of a human being to that of a personal being. But the two are related. I believe that build into the GENETIC code is the personhood of every human being. The very nature of the being is a personal nature. Personality is one quality or attribute that makes us human.

    A human being is a personal being. Do you know of a human being on the other side of the womb (born) who you would not classify as a person? If so, then please list such a human. If not, then why are you trying to declassify one human being (unborn) from another human being (born)?

    Definition of person
    1
    : human, individual ósometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes
    5
    : the personality of a human being : self

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

    Greg Koukle had this to say:

    "It is a mistake to talk about human beings as being potential persons. Personhood is part of the substance of being human, not a property a human develops later. Personhood isn't like hair color that you can change, it's not a property. It is part of the substance of what it is to be human. Trying to distinguish between the humanness and the personhood is looking at it in an inaccurate way. Personhood is part of the substance of being human, it doesn't develop at some other time. It strikes me as the most reasonable way to look at it is that when a being comes into being it is everything substantively that it is. There are properties that it requires. But everything else, its humanness, is there the moment it comes into being. If it comes into being as a separate living thing at the fertilization of the egg, which is what we understand biologically is the beginning of a new life, then at that point it is reasonable to conclude that it gets its soul. It gets everything then and develops from that stage.
    The argument that an acorn isn't an oak but a potential oak isn't true. An acorn is an oak just as a mature oak tree is an oak, both are oaks but they are at different stages of development. It is entirely what an oak was meant to be. No nascent form of a being is the same as the mature form. Is an infant an adult? Of course not. Is a little sprig of an oak tree coming out of the ground a mature tree? No. An infant form is not an adult form, that's all you're saying when you say that an acorn isn't an oak. An acorn is an oak but it's not the adult form. In the same way, a brand new human being formed by the fertilization of a human egg and sperm is everything that a human being is in its substance or essence. That would include being soulish."

    https://www.str.org/articles/does-a-fetus-have-a-soul

    Do you understand the difference between a substance and a property mentioned above?

    I already posted some scientific texts on the subject of the unborn as 1) a human being, 2) individual - a separate human being. You NEVER disputed either of these two scientific FACTS with facts of your own.

    I look forward to you verifying your belief as fact. Where along the way do you think the unborn/fetus/zygote/ acquires personhood? If you don't know, or your opinion cannot logically be proven, you should err on the side of caution and treat it from conception as both a human being AND personal.

    If you are unsure of whether an unborn is a human being or a person, and you cannot prove it is NOT, it is better to treat the unborn as a human and personal being.

    So let's see the proof of your claim!

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Everything you say comes about by belief. One belief is built upon another to form a comprehensive worldview. The question is whether that belief is true to what is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    If you think so...fine. I disagree...and if that is not fine with you...tough.
    Think about it, Frank.

    Ideas are not formed in a vacuum. They rest on core beliefs. The core beliefs build an entire web of beliefs (Matthew 7:24-28). Those core beliefs are faith-based and the basis of all else.

    For instance, no human being was around to see the "Big Bang" and start of the universe. Therefore, you take it by faith that this is what happened by INTERPRETING the evidence available in one of two possible ways - created or chance happenstance universe. What is more, you don't know with certainty if the conditions you believe happened operated the same in the past that we witness in the present. There may be many factors involved that we have not considered that change the variables. And, events like the beginning of the universe are not something verified in a scientific lab. They are one time happenings.

    The same for life. You SUPPOSE that something that was inorganic/non-living became organic and living. Either something that was living always existed and gave birth to all other life forms, or somehow life came from the non-living. Those are your options. Which makes sense to you? How does something that lacks consciousness acquire it? You take it by faith that it can happen without reasonable evidence. Once you assume it can, you start to build on that assumption with a whole lot of other assumptions that tend to collaborate your view. It is what is called confirmation bias. If you think you have no bias I have news for you. No one comes from a position of neutrality. You are not neutral.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Whether or not an unborn is a human being or not is what [where] the whole issue of abortion hangs on. If it is not human then it makes no difference what you do with it; if it is a human being, then you are devaluing its life. If you devalue one group of human beings then what is to stop you from devaluing other groups. This devaluing is what Hilter did. It is what slavery did. It is what apartheid did. It is what the Caste System does. It is what a dictator does to get his way in exterminating huge chunks of undesirables.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    The issue of abortion is about whether or not a pregnant woman should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body.
    No, the issue is whether or not a woman should have the right to kill/murder another human being. Science has established the unborn as a human being from the moment of conception. Prove otherwise. What you and many feminists have done is make it an issue of a woman's right. As was pointed out in the one video I left you, what makes the unborn different from the born human being is 1) size, 2) level of development, 3) environment, 4) degree of dependency.

    These four qualities are what separates the unborn from the born. If you are going to stake the woman's "rights" by these four, you are in for a rude awaking. Why can't the woman also kill/murder her six-month-old newborn based on the same qualities? The newborn is still smaller (size) than the mother. It is still developing/growing (it has not reached the reproductory capacity of the mother) capacity and abilities of a being human. The difference between its environment now is that of 9", from inside the womb to outside the womb. It is still solely dependent on another human being for its life.

    So, tell me why the woman cannot kill the six-month-old that has the same qualities that the unborn has. It is smaller than the mother; it is less developed than the mother. Changing its environment from the kitchen to living-room does not change its nature, and it still is dependent on another for its support and life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    That is what it is about...and that is the issue about which I am offering my opinion.
    An opinion to date that has not shown fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    ....And pregnancy is about two human beings - the mother and unborn human being.

    What you are saying is that a person can choose to murder another human being and receive no repercussions for such violence.

    Remember, there are two human beings involved, not one. If you disagree, give factual and scientific evidence to support your position. I have already provided many quotes from medical, biological, scientific texts that state that the unborn is a human being. Now it becomes a question of authority since you continue to say that it is not ha human being and have not supported your OPINION/BELIEF.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    [1] A pregnant woman who decides to terminate her pregnancy should be able to do so...and do so safely. [2] She should not have to worry about people like you trying to interfere. [3] The zygote or fetus...IS NOT A HUMAN BEING any more than a tonsil or tumor is a human being. You can look it up.
    [1] She should be able to do so ONLY IF the unborn is not a human being, which science says otherwise and which you have not been able to establish as other than human, to date. So go ahead and confirm it or retract your statement that it is not a human being.
    [2] If people like me did not stand up for the rights of the defenseless, they would have no voice at all. When Hilter started to discriminate against the Jews, the deformed, the mentally challenged, his people were silent. The result was 11-12 million (unwanted by Hitler and his regime) dead. The people were too scared to raise opposition to what he was doing. It was a holocaust of barbaric proportions. The abortion holocaust is the greatest in human history to date. Over 1.5 BILLION people have been murdered since 1980 because a particular group of people chose to degrade another group.

    IT IS EVIL.

    So your moral condemnation of me means nothing unless you can prove that your morality has an ultimate, universal, objective source. If not then what makes your OPINION, your PREFERENCE any BETTER than any other?

    [3] A tonsil or tumor is not an individual but just a part of an individual. The unborn is a living, separate, unique individual. PROVE otherwise.

    When you say:
    "The zygote or fetus...IS NOT A HUMAN BEING"

    I ask you, WHAT KIND OF BEING IT IS? Still no reply.

    Please answer the question.

    I noticed (in one post) you said 'human fetus' instead of fetal human. Do you see the difference in connotation?

    Koukle again makes a significant point:

    "We ought to also say "fetal human." It puts the emphasis in the right place and makes it clear to the listener that "fetal" is a stage of development, not a kind of being."

    https://www.str.org/blog/fetal-humans

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Let me show the flaw of this kind of argumentation.

    1) There is not just one human being in the equation. There are two. What she is doing is harming another life in her selfish desire.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Of all the things you have said, PGA...that statement is particularly disgusting.
    The disgusting thing is that people are trying to obscure that the fetus/zygote/unborn is a human being by defining it out of existence. The appalling thing is that they are murdering their fellow human beings. The revolting thing is that they are murdering the most helpless of all human beings.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    She has the right to do whatever she wants with her body within limits, but not the right to do whatever she wants with another human beings body.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    If she chooses to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body, she should be allowed to do so...and to do it safely. She should not be stopped because it bothers you.
    You do not have the right to do whatever you want with your body. There are restrictions, and abortion except for very limited exceptions (like the danger of the woman losing her life, thus compromising the unborn's also) should not be permitted.

    For instance, you do NOT have the right to do whatever you want with your body if it harms others. A person doesn't have the right to drive their car into a tree with you in it just because they are a sadist and enjoy inflicting pain, not only on themselves but others.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    It is a question of human rights. Do all humans have the right to life? If you say no, you put yourself in the same camp as all those who exploit others by devaluing their human worth. To counter the last statement, you first have to prove that the unborn is not a human being.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    I do NOT have to do that at all.
    Sure you do. I have already shown as fact that it is human. I have quoted scientific texts from different fields of study such as embryology and biology that state the unborn, from conception, is a human being. If you disagree, then you must prove otherwise. I'm not interested in your opinion but fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    If a woman who is pregnant decides to terminate her pregnancy...she should be allowed to do it without interference from people like you.
    So you are trying to censor my free speech while pushing yours as the voice of reason. You haven't shown any such thing or any such fact that it is her right. Denial of free speech happens in third world dictatorships. One of the great virtues of the USA is freedom of speech. It is a right in your Constitution. It is being denied on college and university campuses with people who are leftist in their ideology. They are blind to see what kind of lifestyle and lack of liberty they are pushing in their radical ideology. Look at leftist states of the 20th and 21st-centuries to get an idea.

    She should be allowed to do with her body as she like, EXCEPT when it hurts other human beings.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    You can't do this with reason and logic. I can list text after text that describes the unborn as a human being. Medical texts, biology texts, scientific texts, all recognize the unborn as a human being. You go against a wealth of scientific understanding.

    The whole issue revolves around what the unborn being is. Many governments can legislate human beings out of existence like Hitler did, as Kim Jong-Un does, as Communism has done. They can't do this without first devaluing the intrinsic worth of a human being. Are you willing to go there?
    If you are, you have a worldview that is inconsistent for the very reason that as soon as you get put in the position of devalued, you scream for justice. You recognize the inconsistency in devaluing human beings when it gets personal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    What particularly bothers me about this nonsense is that almost all of it is the direct result of religious fervor...and religious fervor has been the driving force of most of the misery humans have suffered throughout their existence.
    If you want to get personal once again, what bothers me about your view is that it has ZERO respect for the most helpless of all human beings.

    I would also question your reasoning on religious fervor. I have tried to keep God out of the equation and focus solely on what the unborn is. I have supplied scientific texts that confirms my belief as fact - not yours.

    As for religious belief, I only support one. I'm onboard with your claim about other religious beliefs. I would qualify atheism and secular humanism as the most destructive religious beliefs in the past hundred years. I have stats that back up these two worldviews as being the most destructive. I have provided them in previous posts.

    As for them qualifying as a religious belief, I qualify them as a religious belief by having at least four to five necessary components that the worldview attempts to answer that all religious belief hold:
    1) What are we?
    2) Why are we?
    3) How did we get here?
    4) What difference does it make?
    5) What happens to us when we die?

    The secular human or atheist's text is scientific text books that deal with subjects that are often scientism, not science.
    They venerate themselves as gods, telling others what should and should not be, without sufficient grounds to do so.

    I also only rightly believe that one worldview can be true for the very reason that all worldviews oppose each other in what they say in the most contradictory of ways. Therefore, logically two opposing worldviews cannot both be right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    In any case, if a pregnant woman decides to terminate her pregnancy...she should be allowed to do it.
    No, she SHOULD NOT. As soon as you bring imperatives into the equation, you are getting into the subject of ethics/morals.

    What makes your moral view BETTER than any other qualitative view? Do you have the means required to establish your opinion is better than any other?

    First, you have to ascertain that you work on a measure that has a BEST, the standard that all others can be compared to and judged against. If you can't lay down what is objective and absolute what makes you think your relative, subjective view (it would have to be if there are no absolutes) hold any merit at all? Such views are a dime-a-dozen.

    Peter

  8. #107
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Peter, I prefer not to get bogged down in one of your massive data dumps, so I will take the first item you brought up…and deal with it. If after we deal with it, you want to bring in a next item, fine with me. I’m here for you.;


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    You changed the scope of my statement slightly, switched the discussion from that of a human being to that of a personal being. But the two are related. I believe that build into the GENETIC code is the personhood of every human being. The very nature of the being is a personal nature. Personality is one quality or attribute that makes us human.
    I you want to “believe” that, I support your right to do so.

    It is my opinion that personhood is something gained upon birth.

    Which of us is correct?

    Beats the ompah out of me!

    We both have opinions on the issue...it does not seem it is something that can be objectively resolved. I am sticking with my opinion.

    Let's deal with this...and we can move on from this after doing so.

  9. #108
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    Yes...you are incorrect...you have the impression wrong.

    Although I may have left the "it is my opinion" out at times, almost any time I discuss this issue, I offer nothing more than my opinion.

    For the record, it IS my opinion that a person is not a person until birth. It is an opinion shared by many...just as the opinion, "from the moment the sperm enters the egg...the result is a person" is shared by many.
    Certainly I get that it is your opinion. I have offered why you should not have that opinion and what justifies mine.

    1 List the distinctions
    2 Show that the distinctions are not relevant to being human
    3 Show that those who oppose are holding something in #1 and per #2 are invalid and unjustified opinion and thus should be rejected.


    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    This reminds me of the tavern joke, "I was dragged bloody and crying from a woman's vagina...and have spent the better part of my life trying to work my way back in."

    Other than sharing that sick joke...I have nothing further to offer on this absurd hypothetical.
    Ha! .. an oldie but a goodie.

    Yes, the point of the example is to be extreme, because IF it were to occure per your stated opinion, it would not be killing a person.
    If it is absurd, it is because the underlying assumption (IE yours) is absurd. That your position is absurd is exactly what I argue as it is based on one the
    the chriteria that is not relevant to person-hood.
    When things aren't relevant, it makes the discussion about them absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    I am determined to take you seriously no matter that you post stuff like this. If you could give me a bit of help by easing up on this nonsense, I'd appreciate it.
    Thanks I am serious, just don't call me shierly.
    Still. The point I am making is that location or envirionment is not relevant to personhood and traveling from point A to point B is irrelevant to personhood and
    not capable of engraphting it into a human.

    That is not nonsense. nonsense would be to say that any given human is a person in Ohio, but not in Alaska, based on location or distance traveled.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    Thank you for sharing that. If anyone wants to comment on your opinion here, I'd love to hear it.
    Your welcome.
    I just wanted to make sure your aware of the pretty simple reasoning for those who hold to the position that the unborn are a person inherently.
    It does require that one work backwards from what is known.
    Since you agree that the born child is a person, through reason I can show that all the differences from before they were born (IE that 8 inch path down the birth cannal)
    is not relevant to person-hood and thus your opinion is wrong, or at best baseless.
    To serve man.

  10. #109
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    I'll do the same thing with you that I did with Peter. Rather than let these things string out to massive posts...let's hand one point...and then move on to the next.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Certainly I get that it is your opinion. I have offered why you should not have that opinion and what justifies mine.

    1 List the distinctions
    2 Show that the distinctions are not relevant to being human
    3 Show that those who oppose are holding something in #1 and per #2 are invalid and unjustified opinion and thus should be rejected.
    Respectfully as possible, you do not get to decide what my opinions should be, MT.

    Please accept that my opinion that personhood is a function of birth.

    In any case (whether you do or don't accept it)...I see birth as something more than moving a few inches in a woman's body. I see it primarily as a detachment from an umbilical without which there would be no life.

    I appreciate that you are of a different opinion, but I see yours as contrived.

    Prior to birth, the fetus cannot live without the umbilical attachment. It is my opinion that when the umbilical is cut...personhood begins.

    We can discuss your disagreement with that.

  11. #110
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    Respectfully as possible, you do not get to decide what my opinions should be, MT.

    Please accept that my opinion that personhood is a function of birth.
    absolutely, however this is a debate site that is to discuss the level and quality of opinions we hold.
    When we debate we are saying "your opinion should change to this because you current opinion is flawed or faulty or incorrect, and this is correct for xyz reasons.
    So if you want to have an opinion that is fine, but if you want to state it on a debate site, then it is going to be evaluated and I offered my reasons for why you should not hold the opinion you do, and why no one should agree with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    In any case (whether you do or don't accept it)...I see birth as something more than moving a few inches in a woman's body. I see it primarily as a detachment from an umbilical without which there would be no life.
    That falls under the "Dependency" of the "sled" argument.

    Like environment dependency is not relevant to person-hood. just because they are attached or dependent doesn't make any human less so.
    Conjoined twins come to mind, each are different persons. Their appears to be nothing magical about an umbilical cord that by cutting imbues person-hood.

    Also, you are factually incorrect to say that the unborn can not live prior to the cord being cut. They most certainly can. They are dependent, but so is any new born for about the first year. Are you arguing that the form of that dependence is relevant? Because it is not.

    As for some application, what of these girls who give birth but never cut the cord and just throw the newborn in the trash. Have they not murdered a person? Do they have any responsibility to care for that new born because it isn't a person because the cord was never cut?
    To serve man.

  12. #111
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Peter, I prefer not to get bogged down in one of your massive data dumps, so I will take the first item you brought upÖand deal with it. If after we deal with it, you want to bring in a next item, fine with me. Iím here for you.;
    So you raise a number of points, I take time to respond to each one of them, then you decide that only one should be answered at a time.

    In effect, you have wasted my time in responding to your posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    I you want to ďbelieveĒ that, I support your right to do so.

    It is my opinion that personhood is something gained upon birth.

    Which of us is correct?

    Beats the ompah out of me!
    First, I stated that the abortion issue rides on what the unborn is.
    I asked you way back when whether it was ever right to murder another human being.
    Then I established that the unborn is a human being.
    I questioned you on what kind of being it is if it is not human.
    What is more, until you establish when a human being becomes a person you should err on the side of caution.

    If you are unsure, like you state, then you should not condone the killing of the unborn.

    I have waited for a long time for a reply to these questions while in the meantime a variety of other issues have been brought into the debate, like personhood or a woman's right to chose to kill her unborn. These come with the issues we are discussing but we first have to establish - scientifically - what the unborn is. You have not done that. Until you do that you are not getting to the heart of the abortion debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    We both have opinions on the issue...it does not seem it is something that can be objectively resolved. I am sticking with my opinion.

    Let's deal with this...and we can move on from this after doing so.
    Is the unborn a human being?
    When does it become a human being?
    Is it ever right to kill an innocent human being?
    If it is not a human being what kind of living being is it, for it is distinct from both mother and father. Its genetic makeup makes it distinct and individual.

    Peter

  13. #112
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    absolutely, however this is a debate site that is to discuss the level and quality of opinions we hold.
    When we debate we are saying "your opinion should change to this because you current opinion is flawed or faulty or incorrect, and this is correct for xyz reasons.
    So if you want to have an opinion that is fine, but if you want to state it on a debate site, then it is going to be evaluated and I offered my reasons for why you should not hold the opinion you do, and why no one should agree with you.


    That falls under the "Dependency" of the "sled" argument.

    Like environment dependency is not relevant to person-hood. just because they are attached or dependent doesn't make any human less so.
    Conjoined twins come to mind, each are different persons. Their appears to be nothing magical about an umbilical cord that by cutting imbues person-hood.

    Also, you are factually incorrect to say that the unborn can not live prior to the cord being cut. They most certainly can. They are dependent, but so is any new born for about the first year. Are you arguing that the form of that dependence is relevant? Because it is not.

    As for some application, what of these girls who give birth but never cut the cord and just throw the newborn in the trash. Have they not murdered a person? Do they have any responsibility to care for that new born because it isn't a person because the cord was never cut?
    We disagree, MT.

    I will hold to "when the umbilical is cut, personhood occurs."

    As for your hypotheticals... I'll leave them to others to sort out. They are too far out for me.

    By the way...I NEVER said, "...the unborn can not live prior to the cord being cut."

    I really dislike those kinds of incorrect paraphrasings. If you could, I'd prefer direct quotes.

  14. #113
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    Prior to birth, the fetus cannot live without the umbilical attachment.
    This statement is not relevant in a real sense, especially because it conveys a false idea that the unborn or not "viable".
    The only reason the unborn can not live without the umbilical cord attached, is not because the unborn can not survive outside the womb, but because it would simply suffocate.
    This is not a fault or flaw of the unborn so as to be relevant to person-hood, as we all would suffocate in the womb without an umbilical cord.. it's called drowning.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    I will hold to "when the umbilical is cut, personhood occurs."
    Certainly you may if you choose, but the reasons you have offered so far are logically flawed and irrelevant to person-hood. That is a "baseless opinion".
    I'm not disputing that you have it, or that you can and probably will hold it. I'm arguing about it being baseless and incorrect.
    While you may, you should not. for reasons given.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    I really dislike those kinds of incorrect paraphrasings. If you could, I'd prefer direct quotes.
    Thanks, I tried to be more clear.

    So far, your opinion seems to be based on an arbitrary and irrelevant event to person-hood.
    Would you care to explain how you think it is relevant.. or are you really just picking something arbitrarily.. and your just content with that because that is your opinion?

    How about the position I have forwarded for the reasons of my opinion. how are they flawed in your mind?

    -----
    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    First, I stated that the abortion issue rides on what the unborn is.
    I asked you way back when whether it was ever right to murder another human being.
    Then I established that the unborn is a human being.
    I questioned you on what kind of being it is if it is not human.
    What is more, until you establish when a human being becomes a person you should err on the side of caution.

    If you are unsure, like you state, then you should not condone the killing of the unborn.

    I have waited for a long time for a reply to these questions while in the meantime a variety of other issues have been brought into the debate, like personhood or a woman's right to chose to kill her unborn. These come with the issues we are discussing but we first have to establish - scientifically - what the unborn is. You have not done that. Until you do that you are not getting to the heart of the abortion debate.
    This is really very reasonable. How it was explained to me was, as a parent if you are at the kitchen sink and your oldest (of several) children asks "hey mom/dad, can I kill this?"
    Your very first question is "what is it". It could be spider, or an ant, or their kid brother. As responsible moral people we have a responsibility to answer that question when a person "could" be involved.
    To serve man.

  15. #114
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    So you raise a number of points, I take time to respond to each one of them, then you decide that only one should be answered at a time.

    In effect, you have wasted my time in responding to your posts.
    If you prefer not to interact with me...I accept that.



    First, I stated that the abortion issue rides on what the unborn is.
    I asked you way back when whether it was ever right to murder another human being.
    Then I established that the unborn is a human being.
    I questioned you on what kind of being it is if it is not human.
    What is more, until you establish when a human being becomes a person you should err on the side of caution.

    If you are unsure, like you state, then you should not condone the killing of the unborn.

    I have waited for a long time for a reply to these questions while in the meantime a variety of other issues have been brought into the debate, like personhood or a woman's right to chose to kill her unborn. These come with the issues we are discussing but we first have to establish - scientifically - what the unborn is. You have not done that. Until you do that you are not getting to the heart of the abortion debate.



    Is the unborn a human being?
    When does it become a human being?
    Is it ever right to kill an innocent human being?
    If it is not a human being what kind of living being is it, for it is distinct from both mother and father. Its genetic makeup makes it distinct and individual.

    Peter
    Obviously you want to continue in this mix-master form.

    I will not do that.

    Please go back to my #108. I want to find out if we can reach agreement that you and I have different opinions about when “personhood” is acquired”…and that there seems to be no way for the question of “Which of us is correct” to be objectively resolved.

    If you agree with me...fine. If you disagree...if you think it can be objectively resolved...tell me how you think it can be (keeping in mind that some of the keenest minds on the planet have struggled with this issue and been unable to objectively resolve it.)

  16. #115
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post

    Okay, let me ask you a question. Let's say newborn baby is disfigured. Face is badly messed up with a cleft palate. And the kid has Down Syndrome. It's going to be a long hard road for parents and child. Should the parents be allowed to kill the kid and try again? Explain your answer.
    Of course not - cleft palates are fixable and hardly hideous or harmful to the child. There was plenty of notice to terminate the fetus and if they didnít take advantage of it when they could have humanely done so and they didnít.

    Past a certain point, it is considered murder. I think we agreed on the first trimester didnít we?

  17. #116
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Of course not - cleft palates are fixable and hardly hideous or harmful to the child. There was plenty of notice to terminate the fetus and if they didn’t take advantage of it when they could have humanely done so and they didn’t. Past a certain point, it is considered murder.
    Well, I honestly don't understand what is "humane" about ripping a fetus into pieces. After what point is it murder?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I think we agreed on the first trimester didn’t we?
    I don't think so, no.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  18. #117
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Well, I honestly don't understand what is "humane" about ripping a fetus into pieces. After what point is it murder?
    Well, a fetus doesnít scream or wave itís limbs about because it doesnít have any. It can be done relatively quickly due to its size. And I guess we like to think that there isnít enough of a brain to feel pain or have any kind of consciousness or self awareness. It may be alive, but it is akin to terminating the life of a brain death patient.

    Murder is based on intent. As I pointed out killing a pregnant woman is usually considered a double murder. So to use the word ďmurderĒ is for emotional purposes and not legal purposes.

    A stronger argument might be say that since Downs is better handled now, that maybe abortions should be made illegal in that case. Itís certainly not legal to abort because of a cleft palate.

    I don't think so, no.
    24 weeks?

  19. #118
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    A prenatal human has pain receptors throughout the body at 8 weeks. It may be that pain is felt that early, or maybe not. At 20 weeks, the fetus reacts to pain the same as an adult human. But are you equating painless with moral? If someone kills a toddler, you'd rightly think that is murder, whether the child feels pain during the execution or not, right? So why is the presence or lack of pain a key to when a fetus may be killed? I don't understand.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  20. #119
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    A prenatal human has pain receptors throughout the body at 8 weeks. It may be that pain is felt that early, or maybe not. At 20 weeks, the fetus reacts to pain the same as an adult human. But are you equating painless with moral? If someone kills a toddler, you'd rightly think that is murder, whether the child feels pain during the execution or not, right? So why is the presence or lack of pain a key to when a fetus may be killed? I don't understand.
    When a person is more concerned about aesthetics (IOW, "the more it looks human the more it is human") it makes more sense.

    This is the basic reason you can get a majority of people agree to limit late term abortion.

    I find it a very curious position to hold, but it does go with the whole "as long as your intentions are good its ok" kind of thinking.

  21. #120
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quite right, Belthazor. It's the same "different from me" thinking that caused the holocaust, slavery, and the common types of racism we're all familiar with. But liberals refuse to see that same kind of immorality when it comes to abortion.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

 

 
Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Terms in the abortion debate
    By mican333 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: February 7th, 2018, 07:56 AM
  2. Is Equal Opportunity Possible?
    By UNC Reason in forum Politics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 6th, 2012, 08:14 AM
  3. Missed terrorist opportunity?
    By FruitandNut in forum Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 13th, 2007, 03:52 PM
  4. Abortion: split from a 1 vs 1 debate
    By CC in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 26th, 2006, 04:37 PM
  5. 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
  •