patrick.net

Throw away everything else.
This is the tipping point between a libbie and the rest of mankind.
Unless it can be taxed, fed from the various social safety nipples, and chained to government dependency, it ain't alive.

Dan8267 says

A fertilized egg is a "growing human being". Who cares?

And 100 years from now libbies will say that year2000 libbies are todays conservatives...and they wonder why they inherit so much guilt...

socal2 says

I firmly believe that 100 years from now, we will look back at abortion supporters with the same horror and disdain and slave-holders.

"Morality! Morality! End inhumanity!" said the ancient institution.

how many libbies does it take to steer a fetus??

thunderlips11 says

By the way:

To achieve this end, the Inquisitors employed several means of torture to aid their victims in confessing their hidden allegiance to the Pentateuch or the Koran. One of the most popular techniques was something called called tortura del agua (water torture), which consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had the impression of drowning. (The current American term for this torture technique is "waterboarding," and it is being employed against alleged enemy combatants at the direction of the President and the Department of Justice.)

The Casa de la Inquisitión was like Club Gitmo!

I'll get morality judgements from those organizations without a history of using the Judas Chair.

Never burn your T-bone again with the new Libbie Temperature Probes!!!

thunderlips11 says

Abortion is not easy to eliminate as it is deeply rooted in ancient libbie rituals...

thunderlips11 says

SoftShell says

how many libbies does it take to steer a fetus??

That's a helluva large fetus. Mother must have been 20' tall.

socal2 says

Life does begin at conception.

No, it begins BEFORE conception. The sperm and the egg are alive. Your statement is simply incorrect. It's a biology thing.

socal2 says

I assume you think it is a "growing human being" sometime a

You assume wrong. The very question is meaningless without a definition of human, which you seem unable to provide. In any case, it's not DNA that makes a person.

socal2 says

Most abortion supporters are so biologically ignorant to think it is nothing but a gob of goo or a tumor.

That is a false statement.

socal2 says

So fucking tired of your "you don't know what a liberal is" shtick.

Then learn the fucking definition. There is nothing in liberalism that says whether or not abortion should be legal or when. There are pro-life and pro-choice liberals, and most liberals are both depending on the stage of development.

Even now you can't even write down a correct definition of liberal. Come on, prove me wrong.

socal2 says

The simple fact is that the vast majority of the Democrat party (which is filled with Liberals, Progressives or what ever you call yourselves these days) is 100% in lockstep with unrestricted abortion.

Another blatant lie.

Most, but not all, Democrats support the right to FIRST TRIMESTER abortions without restrictions. Damn few Democrats support THIRD TRIMESTER abortions except in the case where the mother's life is in danger. You don't even know what your opponent's position is. And you clearly don't have the balls to try to make the case that first trimester abortions should be illegal, but you're not willing to admit that they should be legal.

The Republican efforts to restrict abortions have included first trimester abortions.

Only a tiny, stupid minority believes that fertilized eggs should be consider persons with legal rights from conception. No one believes that an offspring withing days of being born is "just a glob of goo" with no rights. If you misrepresent the opposition's arguments that means your position has no merit.

Blurtman says

Red herring. The two are not necessarily synonymous.

What other justification has ever been given for considering a fertilized egg to be a person?

Blurtman says

Nonsense. In your world, perhaps this is true, but this may come as a shock - you are wrong. You are equating a cancer cell line with a human life.

In the exact same way that the "life from conception" people are equating non-sentient body cells with personhood. Thus my point that it is ridiculous.

SoftShell says

Unless it can be taxed, fed from the various social safety nipples, and chained to government dependency, it ain't alive.

This is a clear Straw Man argument that demonstrates the so-called pro-life community has no justification for its beliefs. If there was an actual other side of the argument, they would be able to refute the criteria I actually proposed for personhood, which is the presence of a mind, rather than telling a lie. Basing personhood on the existence of a mind is not the same thing as basing personhood on taxation and government provided social services. The two are not even remotely related to anyone is isn't severely delusional.

And you can bet Shrek won't admit his mistake here and address my actual arguments.

[Who's Shrek? That's his standard response.]

SoftShell says

Never burn your T-bone again with the new Libbie Temperature Probes!!!

Of course, Shrek has to show images of religious conservatives and their evil behavior and lie about them being liberals, their exact opposite, in order to make his delusional point. What's next? Showing a white slaver whipping a black girl in the 1840s and saying "look how awful the blacks treated whites"?

Dan8267 says

socal2 says

Deflecting again. Who is talking about religion or souls on this thread?

It's hardly deflection when people say stupid things like "life begins at conception" as code for "there's a magical soul that is infused into cells at conception". You are deflecting from the issue. That abortion should be legal for the first trimester when there is no brain and should gradually become more illegal as the second trimester unfolds.

Stop making sense Dan. You are confusing everyone.

Dan8267 says

socal2 says

Life does begin at conception.

No, it begins BEFORE conception. The sperm and the egg are alive. Your statement is simply incorrect. It's a biology thing.

At conception it's still not a human being. Maybe a future human being just like every sperm and egg, but a ways to go before it's human. Nature often self aborts if the pregnancy is not progressing as nature intended

Dan8267 says

https://www.youtube.com/embed/JJ--faib7to

This is cruelty plain and simple. Why can't they identify a fertilized egg to determine it's sex, and not let the males hatch in the first place?

Dan8267 says

In the exact same way that the "life from conception" people are equating non-sentient body cells with personhood.

Yes, you have your logical argument worked out, and anyone who deviates from it must be wrong. I get it. Folks who believe life begins at conception have their logical arguments worked out as well. Consider if you are wrong, however.

Strategist says

At conception it's still not a human being.

Your belief, your assumption. Everyone is making assumptions. Consider if yours are wrong.

Blurtman says

Yes, you have your logical argument worked out, and anyone who deviates from it must be wrong. I get it. Folks who believe life begins at conception have their logical arguments worked out as well. Consider if you are wrong, however.

You have presented no arguments. Nor have you supported any of your assertions. Nor have you even attempt to redress the facts I presented.

There are folks who believe the Earth is flat and only 6,000 years old. Regardless of how fervently they believe that, it's not true. Belief does not create truth.

Blurtman says

Strategist says

At conception it's still not a human being.

Your belief, your assumption. Everyone is making assumptions. Consider if yours are wrong.

It's an opinion, just like your belief is an opinion. If science proves otherwise, I will quickly change my mind.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/MMzd40i8TfA

Dan8267 says

Belief does not create truth

Absolutely. You cannot prove when life begins because it is merely a matter of human definitions. In your case, you cannot prove when life or personhood begins. Anyone who takes a position does so based upon assumptions. And anyone can be wrong. If pro-abortion folks are wrong, millions of humans are killed. If the anti-abortion folks are wrong, millions of unwanted children result, the lives of women are changed, some would say ruined, and many will die in back-room abortions. Which is the worst outcome? You decide.

Strategist says

It's an opinion, just like your belief is an opinion. If science proves otherwise, I will quickly change my mind.

I suggest applying decision analysis to the issue, and see what the possible outcomes can be, and decide which is the worst possible outcome.

Call it Crazy says

We all know what your motto is.

Blurtman says

You cannot prove when life begins because it is merely a matter of human definitions.

Wrong. Definitions are irrelevant. Whether or not statement S is true is not affected by what nomenclature you use. If you change the definitions you are using, you are no longer talking about statement S, but rather a different and independent statement. Word games do not change the nature of reality. You are only playing word games here.

Define life as "petting a puppy" and it does not begin at conception because you have no hands to pet the puppy. But using that definition, whether or not life begins at conception has no relevance to the issue of the legality or ethics of abortion because abortion has nothing to do with petting puppies.

Blurtman says

Anyone who takes a position does so based upon assumptions.

Assumptions are independent of nomenclature as well. Sure, you can express assumptions with words, but the assumptions are represented by the meanings behind those words, not the words themselves. Again, playing stupid word games does not affect whether or not an assumption is valid.

Blurtman says

If pro-abortion folks are wrong, millions of humans are killed. If the anti-abortion folks are wrong, millions of unwanted children result, the lives of women are changed, some would say ruined, and many will die in back-room abortions. Which is the worst outcome? You decide.

False dichotomy. Once again, you miss the point. Both are wrong as the two possibilities you present are not mutually exclusive and are not absolute. You are still ignoring that
1. It's not being "human", whatever the fuck that means, that is important. It's being a person.
2. Personhood does not happen instantaneously. There are degrees of personhood, even if you choose to use the word "human" as a substitute for "person".

So your choice is a false one regardless of your value judgements.

Are you really too stupid not to understand such a simple concept? I have explained this to seven-year-olds and they have understood it. Self-awareness cannot be measured with a litmus test any more than temperature can. There is a whole spectrum of temperatures between freezing to death and burning to death.

Dan8267 says

Wrong. Definitions are irrelevant.

Human life itself is a definition created by humans. Self-awareness is a definition created by humans.

Dan8267 says

but the assumptions are represented by the meanings behind those words,

You are contradicting yourself, an indication that you may be wrong or at least confused. I.e., "..but the assumptions are represented by the meaning behind the words", i.e, the definitions.

You Dan8267 says

False dichotomy. Once again, you miss the point. Both are wrong as the two possibilities you present are not mutually exclusive and are not absolute. You are still ignoring that

1. It's not being "human", whatever the fuck that means, that is important. It's being a person.

2. Personhood does not happen instantaneously. There are degrees of personhood, even if you choose to use the word "human" as a substitute for "person".

"There are degrees of personhood.." - Really. It is an interesting theory, but only that. A mystical belief, even. So if personhood begins at conception,.....

Dan8267 says

Self-awareness cannot be measured with a litmus test any more than temperature can

Again you are bringing up your pet theories, and shouting that they are reality. The personhood theory is yours, and so I cannot argue its merits as It is your creation and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I guess one interpretation might be that baby X is a person at 4 months, buy baby Y is a person at 6 months, and so we have to test for personhood, or self-awareness, in order to abort, but we can't measure it. And yes, chimps, dolphins, bonobos, gorillas, magpies, etc are self-aware, too. I guess they are human then?

Blurtman says

Human life itself is a definition created by humans.

Nature is not created by your diction. Your diction is created to talk about nature.

Blurtman says

You are contradicting yourself,

No, I am not. My words are clear and consistent. Try speaking more precisely about what you are proposing.

Blurtman says

It is an interesting theory, but only that.

It is not a theory. A theory is a conceptual framework that makes testable predictions. My statement is an observation that is empirically verified.

Also, a theory isn't a guess. Something can be a theory and a verified fact. Example: the law of gravity.

Blurtman says

And yes, chimps, dolphins, bonobos, gorillas, magpies, etc are self-aware, too. I guess they are human then?

http://www.janegoodall.ca/about-chimp-behaviour-tool-use.php

One of Dr. Goodall’s most important discoveries was that chimpanzees make and use tools, an activity long thought to be exclusive to humans. In 1960, at Gombe National Park, Jane observed two chimps pick up small twigs, strip off the leaves, and use them as tools to fish for termites in the ground, which they then swept into their mouths as a snack.

This was the first time that an animal, other than a human, was observed to modify an object to create a tool, and then use the tool for a specific purpose.

Until that time, scientists had thought that only humans used and made tools; it was considered the defining characteristic that separated us from other animals. Our species was defined as "Man the Tool Maker." When Louis Leakey received an excited telegram from Jane describing her discoveries, he made his now famous response:

"Now we must redefine tool, redefine Man, or accept chimpanzees as humans."
- Dr. Louis Leakey -

The correct choice is to accept chimpanzees as humans. More precisely, the human nature and chimp nature overlap. Humans and chimps share 98.8% of their genetic code. Chimps are 98.8% human, and equally so, humans are 98.8% chimps. There is no boundary between human an non-human. This is even fuzzier when you take into account all of our ancestors over the past 6 million years. Is Homo erectus human? How about Australopithecus afarensis? As I've stated many times, calling something human vs non-human is largely meaningless and arbitrary, and irrelevant to the question of abortion. Abortion is not objectionable due to what DNA is contained by the offspring being aborted. It's about the mind, if any, being destroyed.

But to get to the issue you just brought up... What we call human rights should be called personal rights and they should apply to all sentient beings including the other apes, dolphins, and whales. They would also apply to sentient extraterrestrial life and artificial intelligence. There are no contradictions in my philosophies.

Oh, and I'm not the only one who believes this.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/21/8460657/judge-gives-chimpanzees-human-rights-first-time

For the first time in US history, a judge has decreed that a pair of chimpanzees held at a university research facility are covered by the same laws that govern the detention of humans, effectively rendering the animals as legal "people" in the eyes of the law. New York Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe said that the apes, held at Stony Brook University for research purposes, are covered by a writ of habeas corpus — a basic legal principle that lets people challenge the validity of their detention.