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

[YPrrrr]

im aborting this thread

you have to get an ultrasound first

Jk

Fair enough though we've all seen this show before. Tec if you want to you can pm me or not because it's abortion and no one ever agrees 

[Kalahari Inkantation]

I don't think your combined thinking is a very good compromise for those who believe abortion is murder though.

i'm not really making an argument for such people, though

i'm not necessarily making an argument for anyone with any of these

i revealed my own personal opinion believing that it would resolve our personal conflict on this matter (which i actually haven't been quite able to identify), but the 'old world new world' clauses are just genericisms

If abortion is necessary  you could also easily argue euthanasia of the those who require assistance to continue to live or function is necessary for the benefit of others. Often throughout history murder is sugarcoated as being purportedly for the greater good or benefit of a people or society or even a singular persons situation

Is this the conflict?

i don't think abortion is an equivalent situation to this

it's limited to fetuses that aren't biologically considered sentient and don't necessarily have constitutional rights, unlike living, conscious humans with personal agency who just so happen to need assistance or be net economic losses for society (i make no value judgements (er, well, excluding economic value) on such people here, i have been one such "net economic loss" lol)

Idk it's disappointing you start out wanting to create compromises but then reneg once a viewpoint doesn't fit your new world view.

And I haven't done this at all. Where did I renege?

[YPrrrr]

I don't think your combined thinking is a very good compromise for those who believe abortion is murder though.

i'm not really making an argument for such people, though

i'm not necessarily making an argument for anyone with any of these

i revealed my own personal opinion believing that it would resolve our personal conflict on this matter (which i actually haven't been quite able to identify), but the 'old world new world' clauses are just genericisms

If abortion is necessary  you could also easily argue euthanasia of the those who require assistance to continue to live or function is necessary for the benefit of others. Often throughout history murder is sugarcoated as being purportedly for the greater good or benefit of a people or society or even a singular persons situation

Is this the conflict?

i don't think abortion is an equivalent situation to this

it's limited to fetuses that aren't biologically considered sentient and don't necessarily have constitutional rights, unlike living, conscious humans with personal agency who "just so happen to need assistance" or be net economic losses for society (i make no value judgements (er, well, excluding economic value) on such people here, i have been one such "net economic loss" lol)

Idk it's disappointing you start out wanting to create compromises but then reneg once a viewpoint doesn't fit your new world view.

And I haven't done this at all. Where did I reneg?

If you mean our personal conflict that would be it because i take it at face value - that murder is the killing of one human by another and abortion is a person terminating the life of another human. Idk you threw that idea to the wind though as being extreme when I feel it's rather common. To me once humans determine which humans are okay to kill and which aren't we have a slippery slope of who gets to make those distinctions and what defines them.

[Kalahari Inkantation]

oh, i think i get it

is the conflict that it seems as if i parodied your personal opinion to make it seem absurd/extreme

because that's not at all what i was doing, in fact i was unaware of your opinion until you brought it up in response lol

anyway,

that murder is the killing of one human by another and abortion is a person terminating the life of another human.

To me once humans determine which humans are okay to kill and which aren't we have a slippery slope of who gets to make those distinctions and what defines them.

i am making a serous effort to be as objective as is humanly possible

i've cited studies that use of [glow=black,2,300]ebonixxx[/glow] is detrimental to its users; i've cited studies that video games are good but game addiction is bad; that better-looking people generally do have better lives, all else equal:

ie., 'attractive females (and males) do better in life, all else equal, than less attractive females (and males)' (this is a scientific fact, by the way)

ie., 'the more successfully a transwoman passes, and the better she looks as a woman, the less likely she is to be have an eyebrow raised in her direction, and the more likely she is to be taken seriously'

see: https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/1992-feingold.pdf

but there is no scientific, medical or legal consensus that human life begins where you, in your personal opinion, assert that it does

[YPrrrr]

oh, i think i get it

is the conflict that it seems as if i parodied your personal opinion to make it seem absurd/extreme

because that's not at all what i was doing, in fact i was unaware of your opinion until you brought it up in response lol

anyway,

that murder is the killing of one human by another and abortion is a person terminating the life of another human.

To me once humans determine which humans are okay to kill and which aren't we have a slippery slope of who gets to make those distinctions and what defines them.

i am making a serous effort to be as objective as is humanly possible

i've cited studies that use of [glow=black,2,300]ebonixxx[/glow] is detrimental to its users; i've cited studies that video games are good but game addiction is bad; that better-looking people generally do have better lives, all else equal:

ie., 'attractive females (and males) do better in life, all else equal, than less attractive females (and males)' (this is a scientific fact, by the way)

ie., 'the more successfully a transwoman passes, and the better she looks as a woman, the less likely she is to be have an eyebrow raised in her direction, and the more likely she is to be taken seriously'

see: https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/1992-feingold.pdf

but there is no scientific, medical or legal consensus that human life begins where you, in your personal opinion, assert that it does

Most scientists would agree the life begins at fertilization because that's when a new life does begin though. Any mammal, they will tell you, begins its life when sperm fertilizes an egg. However, when it is a human, it is suddenly more complicated. The consensus isn't reached only because of political and funding maneuvering. The zygote continues to grow and develop and has its own unique genetic code/DNA. Denying that life begins at this stage is akin to saying the science is out on global warming. Wholly political. An inconvenient truth indeed.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins

https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

[Kalahari Inkantation]

Most scientists would agree the life begins at fertilization because that's when a new life does begin though. Any mammal, they will tell you, begins its life when sperm fertilizes an egg. However, when it is a human, it is suddenly more complicated. The consensus isn't reached only because of political and funding maneuvering. The zygote continues to grow and develop and has its own unique genetic code/DNA. Denying that life begins at this stage is akin to saying the science is out on global warming. Wholly political. An inconvenient truth indeed.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins

https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

yes, let the old world instincts flow throw you

and let me revise my wording, again:

the physiological, basic biological properties of life can be observed at the time of conception, yes, that's true

but they actually begin well before conception: should we ban the waste of unfertilized sperm and eggs too

because those also have the potential to develop into a human

what i should have said is this:

'there is no scientific, medical or legal consensus that human consciousness begins where you, in your personal opinion, assert that it does'

if you can find me a peer-reviewed, generally accepted study that consciousness begins with the zygote, you win

but time-limited abortion is legal today because consciousness isn't initiated until at least several months into the pregnancy (exactly when is and will continue to be inconclusive)

and if you think objectively unconscious cells have constitutional rights:

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

i can absolutely assure you i am not the one being """wholly political""" or ignoring """inconvenient truths""" here

[YPrrrr]

Yes that would have made more sense and I have no argument with that.

Consciousness does not matter to me nor do constitutional rights. I merely ask is it a living human organism? Is it being destroyed by another human? Then inarguably it would be homicide just by definition.

Gametes exhibit properties of life because they are meant to create it but they are very distinct from the whole zygote. The zygote is a genetically unique lifeform.

I was not accusing you of being political or directing the inconvenient truth comment at you that was directed towards any scientists that would deny fertilization as the beginning stage of life.

Blah. I'm sorry I got wrapped up in this with ya Tec. Both sides get demonized and so it is very easy to become defensive as I have obviously done.

[Kalahari Inkantation]

Consciousness does not matter to me nor do constitutional rights.

and yet these are the only things that can be objectively verified

Then inarguably it would be homicide just by definition.

if it has no constitutional rights, then no, that is, inarguably, not by definition homicide, otherwise it would already be illegal

[Kalahari Inkantation]

and congrats, you're the first person ever to have dragged me through an abortion debate

that's quite an accomplishment, i'll have you know

i go out of my way to avoid those because they are extremely time consuming, utterly irrational because emotions get involved, exhausting, and overwhelmingly pointless for near all involved

and yet what's especially ironic is that it seems like we agree

i think you just take issue with how cold/heartless/mechanical i sound about it lol

[spoiler]

but that's exactly what debates of any kind are supposed to be like: cold and factual

yet if i were go to a local abortion debate and compare the matter to the execution of strays, i myself would be executed on the spot, like a stray

the whole reason it's so difficult to resolve this particular issue is because emotional stakes are high, nobody is rational behind all the shrieking and tears and worthless anecdotes, and anyone attempting to remove emotion from the equation as should be done gets perceived as a heartless, inhuman, and irrelevant[/spoiler]

[YPrrrr]

Consciousness does not matter to me nor do constitutional rights.

and yet these are the only things that can be objectively verified

Then inarguably it would be homicide just by definition.

if it has no constitutional rights, then no, that is, inarguably, not by definition homicide, otherwise it would already be illegal

You just said point of consciousness cannot be confirmed and constitutional rights... are we just speaking about America? Idk unimportant imo.

Homicide as a word, not a legal definition, is the killing of one human by another. Homicide can be legal but it would still be one human killing another

[Kalahari Inkantation]

Consciousness does not matter to me nor do constitutional rights.

and yet these are the only things that can be objectively verified

Then inarguably it would be homicide just by definition.

if it has no constitutional rights, then no, that is, inarguably, not by definition homicide, otherwise it would already be illegal

You just said point of consciousness cannot be confirmed and constitutional rights... are we just speaking about America? Idk unimportant imo.

Homicide as a word, not a legal definition, is the killing of one human by another. Homicide can be legal but it would still be one human killing another

i am using legal and not common terms

i speak of that which i am familiar: us law

[YPrrrr]

Consciousness does not matter to me nor do constitutional rights.

and yet these are the only things that can be objectively verified

Then inarguably it would be homicide just by definition.

if it has no constitutional rights, then no, that is, inarguably, not by definition homicide, otherwise it would already be illegal

You just said point of consciousness cannot be confirmed and constitutional rights... are we just speaking about America? Idk unimportant imo.

Homicide as a word, not a legal definition, is the killing of one human by another. Homicide can be legal but it would still be one human killing another

i am using legal and not common terms

i speak of that which i know: us law

right, but I am the one that said it and I meant it in a common term. As a common term it certainly fits the definition, non?

and congrats, you're the first person ever to have dragged me through an abortion debate

that's quite an accomplishment, i'll have you know

i go out of my way to avoid those because they are extremely time consuming, utterly irrational because emotions get involved, exhausting, and overwhelmingly pointless for near all involved

and yet what's especially ironic is that it seems like we agree

i think you just take issue with how cold/heartless/mechanical i sound about it lol

[spoiler]

but that's exactly what debates of any kind are supposed to be like: cold and factual

yet if i were go to a local abortion debate and compare the matter to the execution of strays, i myself would be executed on the spot, like a stray

the whole reason it's so difficult to resolve this particular issue in this country is because emotional stakes are high, nobody is rational behind all the shrieking and tears, and anyone attempting to remove emotion from the equation as should be done gets perceived as a heartless, inhuman, and irrelevant[/spoiler]

I will admit they are a large waste of time and when I began I was at work looking to take any excuse to pass the time so thank you for your willingness to participate in this verbal bloodsport!

I would honestly say it is not cold and mechanical enough! Honestly one of the problems I have with those in favor of abortion is being unable to admit what it actually is. I use logic but it obviously appeals to the emotions. I say homicide and everyone tries to tell me how it's not homicide and blah blah blah. The people that tell me, "so what?" honestly impress me the most. When I'm told to ignore the science of a living organism it feels more like propaganda to me than anything else. Like we're trying to sweep it under the rug. If I have to face a harsh reality I'd rather we just call it what it is whether or not i personally agree with it I can respect that for its consistency even if I find it somewhat abhorrent.

[Kalahari Inkantation]

what i've learned:

for a debate like this to get anywhere, it's necessary to all be operating from the same, highly technical medical/legal/scientific dictionary

'life' is an ill-defined term that can be interpreted in a dozen different ways, when we all actually mean consciousness

[Kalahari Inkantation]

Honestly one of the problems I have with those in favor of abortion is being unable to admit what it actually is.

and what is it

according to whom is it that

[YPrrrr]

Honestly one of the problems I have with those in favor of abortion is being unable to admit what it actually is.

and what is it

according to whom is it that

Well obviously it's the ending of a life any other interpretation is emotional safeguarding. One can devalue the worth of that life as much as one pleases, but that doesn't change what it is.

what i've learned:

for a debate like this to get anywhere, it's necessary to all be operating from the same, highly technical medical/legal/scientific dictionary

'life' is an ill-defined term that can be interpreted in a dozen different ways, when we all actually mean consciousness

To amend my earlier position:

"Homicide is a legal term for any killing of a human being by another human being. Homicide itself is not necessarily a crimeâ€"some homicides are legal, such as a justifiable killing of a suspect by the police or a killing in self-defenseâ€"but unlawful homicides are classified as crimes like murder and manslaughter."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/homicide-murder-manslaughter-32637.html

It is both a common definition and a legal definition. So really there is no room to misinterpret the word. I will admit that I myself misused "murder" earlier as I confused the two terms initially.

Life is not ill-defined; the whole consciousness debate is only to make people feel better about killing a living thing because "it won't even feel it" or some such fairy tale nonsense where we can ignore the implications of our actions with flowery language. As stated above, it being homicide would not make it illegal. Why does everyone fight that it's not homicide when clearly that's what it is? You're allowed to believe homicides can be justified, there is nothing against this legally nor morally since, as I'm sure you know, morality is entirely subjective.