Literally The Current Year And We're Still Having Abortion Debates (On Boyah)

[Kalahari Inkantation]

Well you are from New York and the NYC metropolitan statistical area afaik which skews heavily left. It's just as much an indoctrination and influence upon people's beliefs as being raised in a religion. The arguments you use are consistent with the pro abortion  arguments one would expect from a New Yorker as many of mine are what one would expect of a Catholic. It matters as much or as little as you bringing my religion into it

i'm only identifying bias in your posts

for whatever reason, in that post you allowed a preconceived notion to speak for you rather than allowing your argument to speak for itself

yes, i am just as guilty of sometimes blindly allowing biases to tint my arguments, but i must ask: do you [glow=black,2,300]necessarily disagree with my assessment of your religion's role in it[/glow]

as in, this: http://boyah.net/forums/index.php/topic,68851.msg1541580.html#msg1541580

[Kalahari Inkantation]

How are they not equivalent though? All three involve the possibility of sacrificing human life for the future benefit of society.

replace the word "life" with "consciousness" and you'll see how they differ

[YPrrrr]

How are they not equivalent though? All three involve the possibility of sacrificing human life for the future benefit of society.

replace the word "life" with "consciousness" and you'll see how they differ

I think that's mostly where we differ because to me the earliest stage of life is still life and worth preserving whereas you argue that consciousness must be established. To me that is unimportant as consciousness is not a requisite for life and the fetus will develop conscioisness. Pinpointing when consciousness begins would also be dubious at best. Scientists determined babies reach consciousness as early as 5 months after birth and potentially as early as 2 months: https://www.wired.com/2013/04/baby-consciousness/ But  most would not say that because a 2 week old baby has not gained consciousness that it is okay to terminate .

Well you are from New York and the NYC metropolitan statistical area afaik which skews heavily left. It's just as much an indoctrination and influence upon people's beliefs as being raised in a religion. The arguments you use are consistent with the pro abortion  arguments one would expect from a New Yorker as many of mine are what one would expect of a Catholic. It matters as much or as little as you bringing my religion into it

i'm only identifying bias in your posts

for whatever reason, in that post you allowed a preconceived notion to speak for you rather than allowing your argument to speak for itself

yes, i am just as guilty of sometimes blindly allowing biases to tint my arguments, but i must ask: do you [glow=black,2,300]necessarily disagree with my assessment of your religion's role in it[/glow]

as in, this: http://boyah.net/forums/index.php/topic,68851.msg1541580.html#msg1541580

Which instance was a preconceived notion?

Of course I wouldn't deny that my viewpoint comes from a specific place. I am not arguing using souls and the bible as defenses though because that would be ridiculous. I am stating my views in scientific and legal definitions because these are definitions that should hold true across political, philosophical, or religious lines. Scientifically, it is human life. Legally and linguistically, homicide is the destruction of a human life by another human. The rest of the question to me is matter of philosophy on the necessity for that which cannot be answered objectively because it will be subjective to each individual. Obviously my personal philosophy on it is subjective. But let's not sugarcoat what it is. There's nothing inherently wrong about admitting homicide can be utilitarian, it is merely the emotion behind the word homicide that prohibits the admission of what abortion really is. And if we're trying to be logical it is best to remove that emotion.

[Kalahari Inkantation]

How are they not equivalent though? All three involve the possibility of sacrificing human life for the future benefit of society.

replace the word "life" with "consciousness" and you'll see how they differ

I think that's mostly where we differ because to me the earliest stage of life is still life and worth preserving whereas you argue that consciousness must be established. To me that is unimportant as consciousness is not a requisite for life and the fetus will develop conscioisness.

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

would you have fought for the right of stephanie keene to live

or would you have, in your terms, committed 'homicide' by allowing keene to naturally expire

[YPrrrr]

How are they not equivalent though? All three involve the possibility of sacrificing human life for the future benefit of society.

replace the word "life" with "consciousness" and you'll see how they differ

I think that's mostly where we differ because to me the earliest stage of life is still life and worth preserving whereas you argue that consciousness must be established. To me that is unimportant as consciousness is not a requisite for life and the fetus will develop conscioisness.

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

would you have fought for the right of stephanie keene to live

or would you have, in your terms, committed 'homicide'

I don't think it's a very good example to compare a dying infant with a healthy one. But regardless, if it was aborted it would be homicide just by definition. If a man has terminal cancer but he is stabbed to death he is still a victim of homicide despite being a dead man walking.

So, no, I would not abort the child due to my personal philosophy. If others would I can see the reasoning and i wouldn't hold it against them. Obviously that is a horrible and impossible situation. I've stated before, there is such a thing as justifiable homicide. It just is what it is. Call a spade a spade

[Kalahari Inkantation]

If a man has terminal cancer but he is stabbed to death he is still a victim of homicide despite being a dead man walking.

the man in your example is a conscious being with constitutional rights and personal agency

stephanie keene was never, at any point, conscious, and never would have been

I've stated before, there is such a thing as justifiable homicide. It just is what it is. Call a spade a spade

is menstruation homicide

is any preventable expiration of 'unconscious' cellular tissue homicide

[YPrrrr]

If a man has terminal cancer but he is stabbed to death he is still a victim of homicide despite being a dead man walking.

the man in your example is a conscious being with constitutional rights and personal agency

stephanie keene was never, at any point, conscious, and never would have been

I've stated before, there is such a thing as justifiable homicide. It just is what it is. Call a spade a spade

is menstruation homicide

is any preventable expiration of unconscious cellular tissue homicide

Yeah none of those affect what I'm driving at though. Both are people killing people. Legally abortion is permitted so obviously it's okay under US law. Yet a mother to be being killed will be classified as a double homicide because... that's what it is.

Menstruation is not homicide why do you insist gametes are the equivalent of zygotes. Scientifically that is nonsense. It is a ridiculous argument. Before you jump to the next logical fallacy, miscarriages are not homicide either unless specific action was taken to induce one. Agency or negligence is a prerequisite.

[Kalahari Inkantation]

Both are people killing people.

once again, i am speaking strictly in medical and legal terms

legally, both situations are not "people killing people"

because one was never legally defined as a person and never afforded constitutional rights

Yet a mother to be being killed will be classified as a double homicide because... that's what it is.

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

[YPrrrr]

Both are people killing people.

once again, i am speaking strictly in medical and legal terms

legally, both situations are not "people killing people"

because one was never legally defined as a person and never afforded constitutional rights

Yet a mother to be being killed will be classified as a double homicide because... that's what it is.

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

Fine. Humans killing humans. I grant you points for semantics.

That is not a false equivalence when it fits the definition. Abortion is legal homicide. Killing a fetus outside of an abortion is illegal homicide.

[Kalahari Inkantation]

Agency [...] is a prerequisite.

the expectant mother who was a victim of homicide had her personal agency forcefully and illegally taken from her, thus violating her constitutional rights

the terminally ill man who was a victim of homicide had his personal agency forcefully and illegally taken from him, thus violating his constitutional rights

stephanie keene never had any consciousness, and therefore never had any agency, and would never have developed either as a result of severe medical defect

the situations are not equivalent

[YPrrrr]

Agency [...] is a prerequisite.

the expectant mother who was a victim of homicide had her personal agency forcefully and illegally taken from her, thus violating her constitutional rights

the terminally ill man who was a victim of homicide had agency forcefully and illegally taken from him, thus violating his constitutional rights

stephanie keene never had any consciousness, and therefore never had any agency, and would never have developed either as a result of severe medical defect

the situations are not equivalent

Constitutional rights are irrelevant in the discussion of homicide. Most states have laws that give criminal punishment to those that would kill a fetus outside of an abortion clinic despite a lack of constitutional rights for the fetus.

Stephanie is not the one upon which agency is required. That is required for another actor - the doctor/surgeon. Consciousness is not required before something is considered homicide. It is what it is. You're injecting appeals based upon level of development when that is irrelevant. A human at any stage is a human. If you want to argue personhood or citizenship or constitutional rights go for it because it has no application to what I'm talking about

[Kalahari Inkantation]

Constitutional rights are irrelevant in the discussion of homicide. Most states have laws that give criminal punishment to those that would kill a fetus outside of an abortion clinic despite a lack of constitutional rights for the fetus.

i addressed this, though perhaps not in full

the expectant mother who was a victim of homicide or assault that resulted in the termination of pregnancy had her personal agency forcefully and illegally taken from her, thus violating her constitutional rights

so naturally those criminal punishments make complete sense

Consciousness is not required before something is considered homicide.

please clarify this

[rdl]

itt ypr argues over substance while tec has a parliamentary debate defining words and dropping logical fallacies

[YPrrrr]

Constitutional rights are irrelevant in the discussion of homicide. Most states have laws that give criminal punishment to those that would kill a fetus outside of an abortion clinic despite a lack of constitutional rights for the fetus.

i addressed this, though perhaps not in full

the expectant mother who was a victim of homicide or assault that resulted in the termination of pregnancy had her personal agency forcefully and illegally taken from her, thus violating her constitutional rights

so naturally those criminal punishments make complete sense

Consciousness is not required before something is considered homicide.

please clarify this

Right, but it's not charged as a violation of agency. It's charged as a homicide. Why? Because a human life was destroyed by another human. Homicide doesn't mean a human killing another human except if that human is still in the womb and the mother is okay with it. Homicide is homicide. You can break homicide down into various legal and illegal forms but that does not change what it is.

As I've stated numerous times consciousness is not a requisite for life and scientists are not sure there is any consciousness in infants until about 2 months after birth. If you for whatever believe consciousness is required for life, which goes against scientific understanding of life, then you would have to admit you would be okay with infanticide. Science shows a zygote is an individual life. A human zygote is therefore a human life regardless of consciousness.  Homicide is the killing of a human by another human. Therefore a surgeon killing the living human embryo/zygote is just as much homicide as some criminal killing it. As I've said, the difference is one is legal and one is not

[Kalahari Inkantation]

itt ypr argues over substance while tec has a parliamentary debate defining words and dropping logical fallacies

i'm not sure if you're saying my arguments are fallacious but i don't think they have been

...of course, i will admit to being a little biased with regard to the quality of my own arguments lol