Like an organ in a tank?
I mean, they need environmental support and nutrition to function, but... so do people.
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion
- Thread starter Piscian
- Start date
I mean, they need environmental support and nutrition to function, but... so do people.
Yes it is. A fetus isn't built by the womb, it is nourished by the mother but it lives and grows itself.
Don't entertain this stupidity, please.
Yes.
For the sake of clarity, I treat living human organisms as people. That is the 3 characteristics that matter: being alive, being homo sapien, and being a distinct organism.
Oh, it's a very silly argument.
But I consider the lines you're drawing to be very arbitrary, and absurdity is a valid tool to point that out.
I think everyone should try getting past the first major blockade of this debate before running around all over the place like has been done.
On one side is Tstorm who has the belief (If I may get cute with this) "A person's a person, no matter how small". On the other side is seemingly everyone else debating on this thread that believe either, a pre-born isn't a person until they exit the mother, until the umbilical cord is cut, once the pre-born has a heartbeat, or some other point during the pregnancy.
Until this aspect of the dispute is resolved, all other parts will continue to be unmovable.
On one side is Tstorm who has the belief (If I may get cute with this) "A person's a person, no matter how small". On the other side is seemingly everyone else debating on this thread that believe either, a pre-born isn't a person until they exit the mother, until the umbilical cord is cut, once the pre-born has a heartbeat, or some other point during the pregnancy.
Until this aspect of the dispute is resolved, all other parts will continue to be unmovable.
Wrong. Tstorm's view is "once a woman becomes pregnant, her autonomy and life come second, no matter her wishes", and we're just pointing out how barbaric that is and stating that a woman should have final purview over her body.
So you believe that his core view point and desire is to subjugate women and a pre-born being a person is just an excuse?
If you track back the conversation one post further than the one Terminal quoted trying to pretend dead people are the same as living people, I used the word "life" a bunch of times. Nobody could read this debate through and ever reasonably believe I kept the door open to count the dead the same as the living when the words I used were literally "every human being has a life of equal worth to your own." Like, "what about dead people" is a very, very dumb response.
Compared to the alternatives.
Nobody here is movable. I'm not moving off the truth. They're not moving off of hedonism. It doesn't matter where you start the argument. The only point to continuing the argument is to make perfectly clear that I'm on the side with facts, and all of their counterpoints are simple attempts to shame anyone who disagrees with their emotional, moralizing nonsense.
Parenthood is not barbaric. Society is built on top of parenthood. The idea that parents are responsible for keeping their children alive is the most civilized, least barbaric idea in human history.
That is their belief, not as a conclusion based on anything, but as an axiomatic statement, because it makes it so they don't have to consider the idea that anyone but them has honest moral opinions. When your entire argument is morality devoid of reason, it becomes very difficult to argue against alternative moral systems. Thus, they have to act as though the opposition was never moral to begin with in order to stand their ground.
Uh... yes? The anti-abortion crusade has only ever been about control and power. What, did you actually believe them when they said they valued life, but refused to endorse any policy that would aid a parent in raising a child?
Nothing about my response was related to any of my own beliefs. It was an inquiry for clarification so as to get a more definitive picture of how he views this situation, thread, and Tstorm.
See, the problem with reimagining the conversation like this is that I was there, and so was everyone else. You can go back a few pages and look.
Because it clearly wasn't obvious enough, the actual point I was making was twofold.
- Your definition of 'life' is so imprecise and manipulative that it would not necessarily exclude dead people from the category of being alive.
- Your assumptions about how we should behave in regard to different forms of life are completely unreasonable and based on the inability to falsify a negative.
I have no problem believing that other people have honest moral opinions. However, if you have honest moral opinions then you are not expressing them honestly right now.
I would have vastly, vastly more respect for you and your argument if you just came out and admitted it was a matter of faith, that the creation of new human lives is sacred and that by interfering with it we are tampering in a domain humans are not morally equipped to handle. That argument is also a dead end, but it's an honest dead end, and I can respect it.
I can't respect this attempt to cloak the whole thing in vacuous philosophy and manipulative goalpost moving to substantiate that it's anything more than a personal belief. Personal beliefs are fine, go have them. I don't care. I care when your argument shifts from "I should be able to have my own beliefs" to "I should be able to force everyone else to live by my beliefs".
The problem isn't that we're all too stupid and emotional to understand your clear and self-evident reason, the problem is that your argument isn't good enough to justify the thing you're trying to defend.
Last edited:
That's not really the point (though you did also make some statements about other posters drawing lines between "some humans and others", or something similar).
The point is to show how each category is quite arbitrary. Which makes stringing them together-- "living, human, + distinct organism"-- also quite arbitrary.
And it can't survive without those external organs that it doesn't have. You've painted yourself into a corner.
Biden signs executive order on abortion, declares Supreme Court 'out of control'
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Joe Biden said the Supreme Court decision overturning the right to an abortion was an exercise in "raw political power" and signed an executive order on Friday to ease access to services to terminate pregnancies. Biden, a Democrat, has been under pressure...
So this is happening now, or soonish, which kind of falls in line with my theory some pages back. Getting rid of the poorly made ruling in favor of something more encompassing and through seems like a good direction right? Well that's the one theory. But as the article noted, it's also leverage to get people to show up to the polling booths as this executive order is at best a Band-aid solution and going to have a minimal corrective course.
Yeah, Dems are clownshoes. I guarantee if they get two extra seats to "Nullify Manchin and Sinema" it'll get stalled out by Tester/Blug dogs/the anti-abortion guy they just endorsedBiden signs executive order on abortion, declares Supreme Court 'out of control'
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Joe Biden said the Supreme Court decision overturning the right to an abortion was an exercise in "raw political power" and signed an executive order on Friday to ease access to services to terminate pregnancies. Biden, a Democrat, has been under pressure...www.yahoo.com
So this is happening now, or soonish, which kind of falls in line with my theory some pages back. Getting rid of the poorly made ruling in favor of something more encompassing and through seems like a good direction right? Well that's the one theory. But as the article noted, it's also leverage to get people to show up to the polling booths as this executive order is at best a Band-aid solution and going to have a minimal corrective course.
It's really sad how clowny politics in general has become. It's like the text book example of human nature and what to avoid when in a position of power, yet 100% of the time that power is abused, everytime, always, without exception, because humans are unable to look beyoond their own self-interests for any extended period of time.
I dunno if it was always that way, when our "politics" were just small tribal leaders and such. And I dunno if it was super corrupt at the begining of the country. I think most nations start off with good intentions only to fall to the same shit over and over again.
Which again, is testament to human nature in general.
Maybe we do need robot overlords.