Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 04:27:17 PMIf 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
you're dipping into the moral here though
i'm not making any moral arguments whatsoever
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 08, 2017, 04:31:02 PM
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 04:27:17 PMIf 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
you're dipping into the moral here though
i'm not making any moral arguments whatsoever
True but if you preclude morality really why shouldn't euthanasia be just as necessary. Seems practical
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 04:33:55 PM
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 08, 2017, 04:31:02 PM
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 04:27:17 PMIf 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
you're dipping into the moral here though
i'm not making any moral arguments whatsoever
True but if you preclude morality really why shouldn't euthanasia be just as necessary. Seems practical
well, i'm not precluding morality either lol
i just don't think it's relevant here, my 'old world vs. new world' argument is completely amoral
[spoiler]
but again you're introducing morality into an entirely amoral argument with that abortion thing :|[/spoiler]
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 08, 2017, 04:54:36 PM
[spoiler]
but again you're introducing morality into an entirely amoral argument with that abortion thing :|[/spoiler]
how do you separate morality from murder without it being inconsequential :|
oh lord, now we're getting Old World
Why would killing anyone be wrong other than if you attach morality to the situation tho
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 05:01:05 PM
Why would killing anyone be wrong other than if you attach morality to the situation tho
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 08, 2017, 04:18:55 PM
example 4:
old world thinking: abortion is murder
new world thinking: my body my choice
please identify where any moral argument is being made in either of these clauses
You called abortion a necessary evil does not evil imply morality?
also i misquoted in my deletion splitting confusion
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 08, 2017, 04:18:55 PM
combined thinking, using the previous example: abortion is a necessary evil that should always be readily available to those who might benefit from it, but we must work towards minimizing abortion rates
this is where i'm asking to identify the moral argument
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 05:44:59 PM
You called abortion a necessary evil does not evil imply morality?
ah, now i understand you
i worded it dramatically for effect, but personally i don't necessarily agree that it's "evil"
my opinion is that it can be an emotionally unpleasant solution to a legitimate social problem akin to executing stray animals, but i would argue that that is an amoral position
I would agree that that is amoral but that undermines murder as a concept technically.
If abortion = murder to the old school then you can substitute one for the other.
Therefore you could argue murder can be an emotionally unpleasant solution to a legitimate social problem akin to executing stray animals
Population control is population control unless you add specific parameters to what you can and cannot cull. How would you pick those parameters in a way that wouldn't utilize some semblance of morality?
Idk I don't see it
"abortion = murder" is not actually my personal argument
it's an exaggerated old world argument
if some old worlder out there legitimately is making the argument that abortion == murder, then i'm not going to even try defending them lol
my personal opinion, as expressed on the previous page, is amoral
I know it's not your argument that is very clear lol
It's not exaggerated though why would anyone care if they didn't believe it was murder?
Idk it's disappointing you start out wanting to create compromises but then reneg once a viewpoint doesn't fit your new world view. You can't amorally mediate a moral issue
im aborting this thread
Quote from: C.Mongler on May 08, 2017, 06:36:43 PM
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 n_u
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 04:27:17 PM
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
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 04:27:17 PMIf 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)
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 06:28:33 PM
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? akudood;
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 08, 2017, 06:45:38 PM
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 04:27:17 PM
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
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 04:27:17 PMIf 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)
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 06:28:33 PM
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? akudood;
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.
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,
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 06:52:59 PM
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:
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 08, 2017, 02:41:55 AM
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
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 08, 2017, 07:07:02 PM
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,
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 06:52:59 PM
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:
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 08, 2017, 02:41:55 AM
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/
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 08:52:13 PM
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
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.
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 10:16:35 PM
Consciousness does not matter to me nor do constitutional rights.
and yet these are the only things that can be objectively verified
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 10:16:35 PM
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
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 n_u
[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]
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 08, 2017, 10:21:56 PM
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 10:16:35 PM
Consciousness does not matter to me nor do constitutional rights.
and yet these are the only things that can be objectively verified
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 10:16:35 PM
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
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 10:28:04 PM
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 08, 2017, 10:21:56 PM
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 10:16:35 PM
Consciousness does not matter to me nor do constitutional rights.
and yet these are the only things that can be objectively verified
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 10:16:35 PM
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
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 08, 2017, 10:29:50 PM
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 10:28:04 PM
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 08, 2017, 10:21:56 PM
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 10:16:35 PM
Consciousness does not matter to me nor do constitutional rights.
and yet these are the only things that can be objectively verified
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 10:16:35 PM
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?
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 08, 2017, 10:27:13 PM
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 n_u
[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.
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
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 10:51:13 PM
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
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 08, 2017, 11:15:49 PM
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 10:51:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 08, 2017, 11:11:21 PM
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.
i'm going to make an assumption about you that you're going to tell me is wrong:
the only time you are ever truly immersed in the Old World Religion to which you otherwise only loosely adhere is on the matter of abortion
the bias of your old world upbringing comes through strong in all your rebuttals
until you realize that you are religiously biased on this matter, we will continue to make no progress
and again, i'm not even sure what progress needs to be made, it seems we agree in practical terms
Sure. And your natural new york liberal bias comes through in yours that ignore basic scientific facts and legal definitions. There's no progress to be made that's why it's an abortion debate! Which is why the original premise of a common middle won't work
ypr, where is the practical difference in our conclusions on abortion
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 07:51:05 AM
Sure. And your natural new york liberal bias comes through in yours that ignore basic scientific facts and legal definitions. There's no progress to be made that's why it's an abortion debate! Which is why the original premise of a common middle won't work
i would just call it a meme understanding of science, but i guess you could call it new york
Quote from: ADX on May 09, 2017, 07:56:54 AM
i would just call it a meme understanding of science
says the guy who believes you can """reverse your glasses prescription""" lol
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 07:58:18 AM
Quote from: ADX on May 09, 2017, 07:56:54 AM
i would just call it a meme understanding of science
says the guy who thinks he can (((read the bible himself))) lol
i'm not even sure what that means
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 07:52:20 AM
ypr, where is the practical difference in our conclusions on abortion
Well we both seem to begrudge it but while you called it a necessary evil I would not agree it is necessary although perhaps logically excusable in a select few instances
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 08:07:34 AM
i'm not even sure what that means
last post because this is off-topic https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17647/why-was-the-bible-not-available-to-common-people-in-the-medieval-period
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 08:19:08 AM
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 07:52:20 AM
ypr, where is the practical difference in our conclusions on abortion
Well we both seem to begrudge it
As in, we both begrudgingly accept that it should be permissible as needed?
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 08:23:28 AM
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 08:19:08 AM
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 07:52:20 AM
ypr, where is the practical difference in our conclusions on abortion
Well we both seem to begrudge it
As in, we both begrudgingly accept that it should be permissible?
Sort of. You begrudgingly accept it should be permissible because it does have utility and can help reduce unwanted births which can lead to issues for society and the economy further down the road. I begrudgingly accept that it is permitted but would argue that it is not necessary providing society was willing to make the sacrifices necessary for the care of the unwanted (which it's not so perhaps it really is a moot point although I find it sad we value lower taxes over human life).
so, to be clear: we are uncomfortable with it, but acknowledge that it can sometimes be utilitarian
if our conclusions are in practice equal, what in god's name are you accusing me of on the last page
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 08:39:51 AM
so, to be clear: we are uncomfortable with it, but acknowledge that it is utilitarian
if our conclusions are in practice equal, what in god's name are you accusing me of on the last page
I'm not accusing you of anything?
I mean i would acknowledge it is utilitarian in the same way eugenics is utilitarian. I don't know that something bring utilitarian necessarily justifies the end result. But sure I can see how it could be useful
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 08:49:05 AM
I mean i would acknowledge it is utilitarian in the same way human experimentation and eugenics are utilitarian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 08:49:05 AM
I'm not accusing you of anything?
you accused me of being a "new york liberal"
i'd like to know what that means to you
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 08:52:37 AM
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 08:49:05 AM
I mean i would acknowledge it is utilitarian in the same way human experimentation and eugenics are utilitarian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 08:49:05 AM
I'm not accusing you of anything?
you accused me of being a "new yorker"
i'd like to know what that means to you
How are they not equivalent though? All three involve the possibility of sacrificing human life for the future benefit of society. And I should not have said human experimentation so broadly as clearly there is need for it I meant more in the vein of the risky experimentation conducted on animals that is not permitted upon humans for initial trials. Just for clarification.
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
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 09:07:34 AM
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] y/n
as in, this: http://boyah.net/forums/index.php/topic,68851.msg1541580.html#msg1541580
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 09:07:34 AM
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
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 09:15:17 AM
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 09:07:34 AM
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 .
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 09:13:32 AM
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 09:07:34 AM
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] y/n
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.
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 09:48:31 AM
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 09:15:17 AM
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 09:07:34 AM
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
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 09:51:48 AM
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 09:48:31 AM
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 09:15:17 AM
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 09:07:34 AM
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
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 10:54:43 AM
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
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 10:54:43 AMI'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
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 11:12:58 AM
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 10:54:43 AM
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
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 10:54:43 AMI'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.
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 11:24:48 AM
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
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 11:24:48 AM
Yet a mother to be being killed will be classified as a double homicide because... that's what it is.
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 08:52:37 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 11:39:42 AM
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 11:24:48 AM
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
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 11:24:48 AM
Yet a mother to be being killed will be classified as a double homicide because... that's what it is.
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 08:52:37 AM
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.
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 11:24:48 AM
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
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 12:02:22 PM
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 11:24:48 AM
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
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 12:11:33 PM
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
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 12:02:22 PM
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
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 12:11:33 PMConsciousness is not required before something is considered homicide.
please clarify this
itt ypr argues over substance while tec has a parliamentary debate defining words and dropping logical fallacies
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 12:17:32 PM
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 12:11:33 PM
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
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 12:02:22 PM
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
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 12:11:33 PMConsciousness 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
Quote from: ADX on May 09, 2017, 12:31:41 PM
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 akudood;
...of course, i will admit to being a little biased with regard to the quality of my own arguments lol
*citing logical fallacies
its like an apple trying to fug an orange
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 12:33:20 PM
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 12:17:32 PM
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 12:11:33 PM
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
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 12:02:22 PM
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
Right, but it's not charged as a violation of agency. It's charged as a homicide. Why?
because the expectant mother, the only legal person with agency and constitutional rights in the expectant mother-fetus relationship, decided that one day the fetus would, like her, be allowed to develop into a legal person with agency and constitutional rights
then her asshole ex kicked her like a stray animal and terminated the unconscious cluster of cells that the expectant mother had herself decided would eventually develop into a legal person with agency and constitutional rights
and thus the homicide charges*
*but only in 21 states as it's an extremely difficult situation to define well, as we now know
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide#Laws_in_the_United_States
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 12:33:20 PM
As I've stated numerous times consciousness is not a requisite for life
If you for whatever believe consciousness is required for life, which goes against scientific understanding of life
you keep conflating the biological definition of life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions
with consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#In_the_dictionary
i started off making the same mistake
i have since corrected myself
i am unsure if conflating the terms is a deliberate strategy on your part, but i will continue to pinpoint it every time you do it
i have never once argued that consciousness is a prerequisite for
the biological definition of lifei have several times argued that consciousness is a prerequisite for being awarded legal personhood, along with which comes constitutional rights
Quote from: ADX on May 09, 2017, 01:15:06 PM
its like an apple trying to fug an orange
i'm not sure what this means but lol
That you equate human life with an animals' is sad.
You're just in denial. You call it a clump of cells. You call it a stray animal. Prior to this post you demand proof of consciousness. You demand it need personhood despite that being being a philosophical debate with no firm definition. Unless you're quoting the American legal definition of personhood to me in which case that is hilarious because that ascribes personhood to corporations.
You're just doing a lot of backtracking at this point because you are unable to accept the truth. Anything to avoid admitting it is human.
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 03:54:51 PM
That you equate human life with an animals' is sad.
oh my goodnessypr, please reread this and recognize that your previous post is an emotional response
i am not making any value judgements whatsoever
Simple question: is a human zygote a living thing?
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 03:56:20 PM
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 03:54:51 PM
That you equate human life with an animals' is sad.
oh my goodness
You are comparing human offspring to stray animals are you not?
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 08, 2017, 10:27:13 PM
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 n_u
[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]
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 03:56:20 PM
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 03:54:51 PM
That you equate human life with an animals' is sad.
oh my goodness
ypr, please reread this and recognize that your previous post:
http://boyah.net/forums/index.php/topic,68851.msg1541692.html#msg1541692
is an emotional response
i am not making any value judgements whatsoever
Yes cold and factual yet relies upon strawmen that avoid my point.
Cold and factual but cannot admit cold truth that something is homicidal because that would be problematic
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 03:57:20 PM
Simple question: is a human zygote a living thing?
please identify my strawman argument(s)
and again, we are using different definitions of homicide
under the legal definition, i have clearly defined what homicide is and is not
and really it depends on what the definition of "is" is
lol
"""human""" ifeelbetter;
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 06:28:33 PM
Idk it's disappointing you start out wanting to create compromises but then reneg
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 07:51:05 AM
And your natural new york liberal bias
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 03:54:51 PM
That you equate human life with an animals' is sad.
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 03:54:51 PM
You're just in denial.
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 03:54:51 PM
You're just doing a lot of backtracking at this point because you are unable to accept the truth.
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 03:54:51 PM
Anything to avoid admitting it is human.
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 04:03:50 PM
Yes cold and factual yet relies upon strawmen that avoid my point.
ypr, what are these
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 04:16:29 PM
please identify my strawman argument(s)
and again, we are using different definitions of homicide
under the legal definition, i have clearly defined what homicide is and is not
waste of time. The whole Stephanie K thing. That I'm somehow arguing the constitution with you? Consciousness. Personhood. All irrelevant to defining homicide.
And you have not clearly defined homicide you have made excuses as to why homicide is the name of that crime despite it accurately describing the events.
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 04:16:50 PM
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 04:05:54 PM
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 03:57:20 PM
Simple question: is a human zygote a living thing?
What is your definition of "living"?
So you really have no scientific understanding of the situation and this is all a waste of time. Am I living, Descartes?
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 04:24:04 PM
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 06:28:33 PM
Idk it's disappointing you start out wanting to create compromises but then reneg
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 07:51:05 AM
And your natural new york liberal bias
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 03:54:51 PM
That you equate human life with an animals' is sad.
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 03:54:51 PM
You're just in denial.
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 03:54:51 PM
You're just doing a lot of backtracking at this point because you are unable to accept the truth.
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 03:54:51 PM
Anything to avoid admitting it is human.
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 04:03:50 PM
Yes cold and factual yet relies upon strawmen that avoid my point.
ypr, what are these
you do realize I was sanitizing you by bringing up new York immediately after you brought up my religion right? Because both are meaningless. The point was to demonstrate how silly your assertion of my bias was. I guess at least you see how it's silly as it pertains to you.
And you are in denial as much as global warming deniers are in denial. You cherry pick science as it fits your viewpoint and ignore it when it doesn't help. You rely on abstract concepts (not cold facts btw) like consciousness and personhood to make an argument against something I'm not even arguing.
You can't even address if a zygote is living because you are worried about the implication of your answer I mean it's silly n_u
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 04:41:56 PM
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 04:16:29 PM
please identify my strawman argument(s)
and again, we are using different definitions of homicide
under the legal definition, i have clearly defined what homicide is and is not
waste of time. The whole Stephanie K thing. That I'm somehow arguing the constitution with you? Consciousness. Personhood. All irrelevant to defining homicide.
if we use terms that are not clearly defined, we will merely argue past each other as a result of misunderstanding, as has been happening for the past few pages now
i have gone out of my way to use the biological definition of life and the legal definition of homicide because those are objectively defined and easily cited
i am striving for semantic accuracy and as such i have updated all my vocabulary to be exactly defined
our word choices are absolutely relevant
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 04:41:56 PM
you have made excuses as to why homicide is the name of that crime despite it accurately describing the events.
you have once again accused me of something which i am not guilty of
i believe that would be the 8th time
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 04:41:56 PM
So you really have no scientific understanding of the situation and this is all a waste of time. Am I living, Descartes?
i have no idea what this means, but i get the sense it's another accusation of which i am demonstrably not guilty (#9, i believe)
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 09, 2017, 04:24:04 PM
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 06:28:33 PM
Idk it's disappointing you start out wanting to create compromises but then reneg
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 07:51:05 AM
And your natural new york liberal bias
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 03:54:51 PM
That you equate human life with an animals' is sad.
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 03:54:51 PM
You're just in denial.
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 03:54:51 PM
You're just doing a lot of backtracking at this point because you are unable to accept the truth.
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 03:54:51 PM
Anything to avoid admitting it is human.
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 04:03:50 PM
Yes cold and factual yet relies upon strawmen that avoid my point.
ypr, what are these
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 04:41:56 PM
you do realize I was sanitizing you by bringing up new York immediately after you brought up my religion right? Because both are meaningless. The point was to demonstrate how silly your assertion of my bias was. I guess at least you see how it's silly as it pertains to you.
yes, i recognize and respect that
everything you say here is absolutely true
i have since stopped allowing my own preconceived notions to color my perception of you and gone out of my way to keep my personal biases in check (hence my continued insistence on using only formally defined terminology: i am abstaining from using colloquially/personally defined, and thus potentially biased, words)
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 04:41:56 PM
And you are in denial as much as global warming deniers are in denial.
You cherry pick science as it fits your viewpoint and ignore it when it doesn't help.
You rely on abstract concepts (not cold facts btw) like consciousness and personhood to make an argument against something I'm not even arguing.
You can't even address if a zygote is living because you are worried about the implication of your answer I mean it's silly n_u
these are objectively false accusations #s 10, 11, 12, and 13
where do they keep coming from
You actually ignored the legal definition of homicide and substituted your own explanation using personhood (which is irrelevant).
You linked a Wikipedia article for life that basically said the beginning of life is not agreed upon by all sources so that isn't particularly well defined.
Consciousness isn't well defined.
Personhood as a concept is not well defined. You cite US law for this despite it including many non human entities as persons.
The rest of that post is irrelevant. I get it, you feel you are objective (though you clearly are not)
Anyway. Clearly we are getting nowhere fast and it is in the best interest of boyah if we leave it here. Good debate!
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 05:30:32 PM
You actually ignored the legal definition of homicide
in what sense
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 05:30:32 PM
and substituted your own explanation using personhood (which is irrelevant)
and why is it not relevant
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 05:30:32 PM
You linked a Wikipedia article for life that basically said the beginning of life is not agreed upon by all sources so that isn't particularly well defined.
but please reread and see for yourself what the most commonly accepted definition in biology is: it has nothing to do with consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 05:30:32 PM
Consciousness isn't well defined.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/consciousness
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 05:30:32 PMPersonhood as a concept is not well defined. You cite US law for this despite it including many non human entities as persons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood#United_States
you are conflating
personhood with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#In_the_United_States
corporate personhood
they may sound similar but they are not, in fact, the same thing
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 05:30:32 PM
The rest of that post is irrelevant.
no, i quoted your false accusations for good reason
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 05:30:32 PM
I get it, you feel you are objective (though you clearly are not)
i am trying my best
Quote from: YPargh on May 09, 2017, 05:30:32 PM
Clearly we are getting nowhere fast
false
No seriously I'm done lol it's not worth it it's never worth it I apologize to everyone for forgetting that.
okay
Quote from: YPargh on May 08, 2017, 04:51:10 PM
Obviously somewhat idealistic but I have to morally stand on something I've wavered on so much
I hadn't previously noticed this Very Interesting confession.
@ypr a zygote is technically living in the same way a brain cell or a cancer cell is living. it can't survive on its own and therefore cannot be a victim of homicide imo
I don't want to get dragged back into this doooood
Brain/cancer cells do not possess a unique genome, they are not organisms. A zygote is an organism. It has a genetic pattern to develop its own unique characteristics and all cell types whereas the others are not organisms and cannot develop into anything more complex.
An infant cannot survive on its own either and would require sustenance from the mother or a surrogate source.
Actually here: https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
That way I don't need to post anymore. You guys are free to disagree! But no more addressing YPR.
Okay the end bye
This reminds me of the early abortion thread where lawlz tried to argue that it was okay because a fetus couldn't survive on its own without realizing that newborns on up to possibly a few years old can't survive on their own either. And the old or really diseased.
[Hr]
Alternatively, I guess old boyah is a thing that can't be aborted and will never disappear completely.
[Color=transparent]unlike 2.0[/color]
i meant "survive on its own" in the most literal way possible - if a zygote is removed from the womb it will die. a newborn baby, obviously, cannot fend for itself, but it can survive in the world without its mother being present, at least for a little while.
And in the most literal way possible a newborn can't survive on its own. When the newborn is removed from the womb it will die without help. Sure, it might be able to live for a few days, but, and playing semantics, that's not surviving. And it will die without help. Probably even up to a few years.
(And I know old boyah/outsider/nsider loved playing semantics.)
yes that is exactly what i said
that's still a lot longer than a zygote would survive for
abort this thread tbh
Quote from: Travis on May 10, 2017, 01:37:03 PM
@ypr a zygote is technically living in the same way a brain cell or a cancer cell is living. it can't survive on its own and therefore cannot be a victim of homicide imo
you are correct of course, but
Quote from: Travis on May 10, 2017, 01:37:03 PM
imo
there is no need for this
when you're citing a verified scientific fact, it's not a matter of your personal opinion
disclaiming yourself with 'imo' only makes your argument seem insecure
so you can say confidently:
Quote from: Travis on May 10, 2017, 01:37:03 PM
@ypr, In Fact™, a zygote is technically living in the same way a brain cell or a cancer cell is living. it can't survive on its own and therefore cannot be a victim of homicide
of course this is only true if you're using the strictly legal definition of homicide, which ypr has not been doing
and, of course, this would annoy the absolute fuck; out of whomstsoever you're arguing with, rofl
[spoiler=disclaimer]
of course, you may only speak with confidence on factual matters if you're getting your facts from valid, generally accepted scientific sources
you know, for you slimy new york liberals out there who like to cite the mommy blog of the week, moronic editorials, and absolute shit like
The Cuckington Post as """fact""" (http://i.imgur.com/fjpBeyi.gif)[/spoiler]
Quote from: Thyme on May 10, 2017, 08:37:10 PM
abort this thread tbh
abort this thread, in fact
TM
i lol'd
[spoiler]
but cite your sources boyo[/spoiler]
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 10, 2017, 08:42:55 PM
i lol'd
[spoiler]
but cite your sources boyo[/spoiler]
1. Gibbings, Aaron. "Literally The Current Year And We're Still Having Abortion Debates (On Boyah)."
Boyah, http://boyah.net/forums/index.php/topic,68858.0.html. Accessed 10 May 2017.
my first scientific citation giggle;
[spoiler]
In this moment, I am euphoric.
Not because of any phony god’s blessing.
But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 10, 2017, 08:38:01 PM
Quote from: Travis on May 10, 2017, 01:37:03 PM
@ypr a zygote is technically living in the same way a brain cell or a cancer cell is living. it can't survive on its own and therefore cannot be a victim of homicide imo
you are correct of course, but
Quote from: Travis on May 10, 2017, 01:37:03 PM
imo
there is no need for this
when you're citing a verified scientific fact, it's not a matter of your personal opinion
disclaiming yourself with 'imo' only makes your argument seem insecure
so you can say confidently:
Quote from: Travis on May 10, 2017, 01:37:03 PM
@ypr, In Factâ,,¢, a zygote is technically living in the same way a brain cell or a cancer cell is living. it can't survive on its own and therefore cannot be a victim of homicide
of course this is only true if you're using the strictly legal definition of homicide, which ypr has not been doing
and, of course, this would annoy the absolute fuck; out of whomstsoever you're arguing with, rofl
[spoiler=disclaimer]
of course, you may only speak with confidence on factual matters if you're getting your facts from valid, generally accepted scientific sources
you know, for you slimy new york liberals out there who like to cite the mommy blog of the week, moronic editorials, and absolute shit like The Cuckington Post as """fact""" (http://i.imgur.com/fjpBeyi.gif)[/spoiler]
I guess you didn't read the link explaining the difference between those types of cells by an embryologist.
From law.com:
"the killing of a human being due to the act or omission of another. Included among homicides are murder and manslaughter, but not all homicides are a crime, particularly when there is a lack of criminal intent. Non-criminal homicides include killing in self-defense, a misadventure like a hunting accident or automobile wreck without a violation of law like reckless driving, or legal (government) execution. Suicide is a homicide, but in most cases there is no one to prosecute if the suicide is successful. Assisting or attempting suicide can be a crime."
How does it not fit that definition. The legal definition.
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 11, 2017, 12:57:50 AM
Quote from: YPargh on May 11, 2017, 12:54:23 AM
human being
define this term
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
As a human zygote is an individual lifeform based on its genome, it is therefore a human being. Cancer and brain cells are not individuals
Quote from: YPargh on May 11, 2017, 01:01:03 AM
any individual
a zygote, like an isolated brain cell, cannot live (in the biological sense, or in terms of consciousness) as an individual
any formal definition of zygote, embryo, blastocyst, fetus, or other named stage of development is extremely careful to avoid equating that developmental phase with 'human being'
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastocyst
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
i acknowledge that these definitions can seem crudely clinical, but they are strictly factual
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 11, 2017, 01:11:28 AM
Quote from: YPargh on May 11, 2017, 01:01:03 AM
any individual
a zygote cannot live (in the biological sense, or in terms of consciousness) as an individual
any formal definition of zygote, embryo, blastocyst, fetus, or other named stage of development is extremely careful to avoid equating that developmental phase with 'human being'
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastocyst
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
i acknowledge that these definitions can seem crudely clinical, but they are strictly factual
That is irrelevant to if it is a living human being. A 6 month old fetus would die outside the womb without medical support are you saying that isnt human?
So I post an article from an Embryologist and that's not factual? Okay lol. I guess wikipedia is a better source than people who study this for a living. Yes wikipedia is strictly clinical but the doctor isn't... oh wait but since Wikipedia is strictly clinical, strictly factual look at its definition of homicide: "Homicide refers to one human killing another. " No mention of "being" there either!
Quote from: YPargh on May 11, 2017, 01:22:41 AM
An 8 month old fetus would die outside the womb without medical support are you saying that isnt human.
i (personally) am not necessarily saying that
also this is an irrelevant point as third-trimester abortions are illegal virtually everywhere, except in cases of life-threatening circumstances to the expectant mother
see this histogram: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_abortion_by_gestational_age_2004_histogram.svg
see these poll results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#By_trimester_of_pregnancy
see this piece of legislation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act
Quote from: YPargh on May 11, 2017, 01:22:41 AM
So I post an article from an Embryologist and that's not factual?
i might have just missed it lol
what was the article and what was the relevant point
Quote from: YPargh on May 11, 2017, 01:22:41 AM
Yes wikipedia is strictly clinical but the doctor isn't...
and yet a doctor who refuses to perform a legally sanctioned abortion gets into Deep Sh*t
Quote from: YPargh on May 11, 2017, 01:22:41 AM"Homicide refers to one human killing another. " No mention of "being" there either!
'homicide: the killing of a human hair follicle by a human'
Quote from: don?t let?s on May 10, 2017, 07:05:06 PM
(And I know old boyah/outsider/nsider loved playing semantics.)
this is indeed a very Old Boyah thread lol
Quote from: Travis on May 10, 2017, 08:29:00 PM
yes that is exactly what i said
that's still a lot longer than a zygote would survive for
but it's ultimately a meaningless distinction and does nothing to back up your point. It's a bad argument and I don't know why boyagers keep using it. (Part of the problem is that it's too broad)
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on May 11, 2017, 02:49:59 AM
Quote from: don?t let?s on May 10, 2017, 07:05:06 PM
(And I know old boyah/outsider/nsider loved playing semantics.)
this is indeed a very Old Boyah thread lol
the whole semantics thing was horrible years ago because it made me be super redundant and have to over explain myself in these kinds of threads. And it had to be that way because I knew certain people would twist my words or purposely take them to mean something else other than the clearly intended meaning. And then they would harp on that misinterpretation instead of staying on track.
i know the feeling
Yes, we only deal in cold, clinical facts here like that a zygote (an organism) is the equivalent of a hair follicle (a gland) oh my lord lol.
Since you like quoting US law so much:
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb". So even the US government recognizes fetuses as humans. Which would mean a human killing them would be... *drumroll* homicide.
You cannot necessarily admit an 8 month old fetus is a human? I mean come on that's ridiculous. It's not an irrelevant point unless your point about surviving outside the womb is irrelevant. Which, admittedly it is and that's the point thank you.
Yes Tec will scour the internet for random irrelevancies that have nothing to do with my point but won't look back 2 pages for a link n_u https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
Quote from: donʼt letʼs on May 11, 2017, 02:54:50 AM
Quote from: Travis on May 10, 2017, 08:29:00 PM
yes that is exactly what i said
that's still a lot longer than a zygote would survive for
but it's ultimately a meaningless distinction and does nothing to back up your point. It's a bad argument and I don't know why boyagers keep using it. (Part of the problem is that it's too broad)
i mean, do you want to elaborate a bit on why it's bad? a zygote cannot breathe, eat, drink, move, think etc. that seems like a pretty huge distinction between that and an infant
i am pro abortion
Quote from: Travis on May 11, 2017, 12:54:33 PM
Quote from: donʼt letʼs on May 11, 2017, 02:54:50 AM
Quote from: Travis on May 10, 2017, 08:29:00 PM
yes that is exactly what i said
that's still a lot longer than a zygote would survive for
but it's ultimately a meaningless distinction and does nothing to back up your point. It's a bad argument and I don't know why boyagers keep using it. (Part of the problem is that it's too broad)
i mean, do you want to elaborate a bit on why it's bad? a zygote cannot breathe, eat, drink, move, think etc. that seems like a pretty huge distinction between that and an infant
using survivability outside of the womb is a bad argument. Partly because its too broad and leaves itself open to including other things, such as infants as I indicated in my first post. And secondly, why do you accept survivability outside the womb as a good metric to use, and why do you think it's a good argument?
Quote from: donʼt letʼs on May 11, 2017, 01:28:01 PM
Quote from: Travis on May 11, 2017, 12:54:33 PM
Quote from: donʼt letʼs on May 11, 2017, 02:54:50 AM
Quote from: Travis on May 10, 2017, 08:29:00 PM
yes that is exactly what i said
that's still a lot longer than a zygote would survive for
but it's ultimately a meaningless distinction and does nothing to back up your point. It's a bad argument and I don't know why boyagers keep using it. (Part of the problem is that it's too broad)
i mean, do you want to elaborate a bit on why it's bad? a zygote cannot breathe, eat, drink, move, think etc. that seems like a pretty huge distinction between that and an infant
using survivability outside of the womb is a bad argument. Partly because its too broad and leaves itself open to including other things, such as infants as I indicated in my first post. And secondly, why do you accept survivability outside the womb as a good metric to use, and why do you think it's a good argument?
because if it literally doesn't even have the faculties to survive outside of the womb if it even wanted to then i wouldn't consider it a sentient being that can be a victim of homicide, like i said in my first post. that's literally all i'm saying. i'm not sure why you keep saying it's such a bad argument when it's scientifically sound
Quote from: Travis on May 11, 2017, 01:43:26 PM
Quote from: donʼt letʼs on May 11, 2017, 01:28:01 PM
Quote from: Travis on May 11, 2017, 12:54:33 PM
Quote from: donʼt letʼs on May 11, 2017, 02:54:50 AM
Quote from: Travis on May 10, 2017, 08:29:00 PM
yes that is exactly what i said
that's still a lot longer than a zygote would survive for
but it's ultimately a meaningless distinction and does nothing to back up your point. It's a bad argument and I don't know why boyagers keep using it. (Part of the problem is that it's too broad)
i mean, do you want to elaborate a bit on why it's bad? a zygote cannot breathe, eat, drink, move, think etc. that seems like a pretty huge distinction between that and an infant
using survivability outside of the womb is a bad argument. Partly because its too broad and leaves itself open to including other things, such as infants as I indicated in my first post. And secondly, why do you accept survivability outside the womb as a good metric to use, and why do you think it's a good argument?
because if it literally doesn't even have the faculties to survive outside of the womb if it even wanted to then i wouldn't consider it a sentient being that can be a victim of homicide, like i said in my first post. that's literally all i'm saying. i'm not sure why you keep saying it's such a bad argument when it's scientifically sound
Sentience isn't require of something to kill it though.
All I'm saying is A. it is a living individual organism (as one can tell by its genome) B. It is human (as one can tell by its DNA) C. Homicide is the killing of a human by another human
So therefore, by definition, it is homicide. Which as I've said before, can be legal. Any aversion to the term is merely caused by the emotional impact of the word. You can feel that an abortion, as homicide, is reasonable for the reasons you provided and should be one of the legal versions of homicide - justifiable homicide.
Quote from: Travis on May 11, 2017, 01:43:26 PM
Quote from: donʼt letʼs on May 11, 2017, 01:28:01 PM
Quote from: Travis on May 11, 2017, 12:54:33 PM
Quote from: donʼt letʼs on May 11, 2017, 02:54:50 AM
Quote from: Travis on May 10, 2017, 08:29:00 PM
yes that is exactly what i said
that's still a lot longer than a zygote would survive for
but it's ultimately a meaningless distinction and does nothing to back up your point. It's a bad argument and I don't know why boyagers keep using it. (Part of the problem is that it's too broad)
i mean, do you want to elaborate a bit on why it's bad? a zygote cannot breathe, eat, drink, move, think etc. that seems like a pretty huge distinction between that and an infant
using survivability outside of the womb is a bad argument. Partly because its too broad and leaves itself open to including other things, such as infants as I indicated in my first post. And secondly, why do you accept survivability outside the womb as a good metric to use, and why do you think it's a good argument?
because if it literally doesn't even have the faculties to survive outside of the womb if it even wanted to then i wouldn't consider it a sentient being that can be a victim of homicide, like i said in my first post. that's literally all i'm saying. i'm not sure why you keep saying it's such a bad argument when it's scientifically sound
please reread my first post and this time see that I wasn't arguing anything with the homicide angle.
And now I wonder what you were arguing with me for anyway.
if a fetus was found on mars it would be considered life
checkmate scum
it would be considered evidence of life
well actually it would really depend on whether it was discovered biologically alive or biologically dead
in any case, irrelevant point
i know i just needed to post. i really didnt read this thread
Mars disaster
Wawi mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids :|
Quote from: YPargh on May 11, 2017, 04:17:43 PM
Wawi mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids :|
yes it is, it is the perfect place wariodood;
someone pls tldr this whole thread for me
Quote from: antmaster5000 on May 11, 2017, 04:54:24 PM
someone pls tldr this whole thread for me
your life is better off just avoiding it all together girl;
Quote from: donʼt letʼs on May 11, 2017, 02:21:30 PM
Quote from: Travis on May 11, 2017, 01:43:26 PM
Quote from: donʼt letʼs on May 11, 2017, 01:28:01 PM
Quote from: Travis on May 11, 2017, 12:54:33 PM
Quote from: donʼt letʼs on May 11, 2017, 02:54:50 AM
Quote from: Travis on May 10, 2017, 08:29:00 PM
yes that is exactly what i said
that's still a lot longer than a zygote would survive for
but it's ultimately a meaningless distinction and does nothing to back up your point. It's a bad argument and I don't know why boyagers keep using it. (Part of the problem is that it's too broad)
i mean, do you want to elaborate a bit on why it's bad? a zygote cannot breathe, eat, drink, move, think etc. that seems like a pretty huge distinction between that and an infant
using survivability outside of the womb is a bad argument. Partly because its too broad and leaves itself open to including other things, such as infants as I indicated in my first post. And secondly, why do you accept survivability outside the womb as a good metric to use, and why do you think it's a good argument?
because if it literally doesn't even have the faculties to survive outside of the womb if it even wanted to then i wouldn't consider it a sentient being that can be a victim of homicide, like i said in my first post. that's literally all i'm saying. i'm not sure why you keep saying it's such a bad argument when it's scientifically sound
please reread my first post and this time see that I wasn't arguing anything with the homicide angle.
And now I wonder what you were arguing with me for anyway.
because you apparently were misunderstanding what i meant and i was willing to address it? doodhuh;