Siding with Death

Author: ethang5

Posts

Total: 327
#211
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
How can anyone be satisfied with a worldview that requires them to dodge questions? Where is their internal integrity?

How can anyone be satisfied with a worldview based entirely on the imagination of the IPSS.

#212
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Why would a miscarriage be automatically a crime?
Because alcohol and prescription drug use and recreational drug use and excessive physical activity and identifiable physical deformities often contribute to miscarriage.  If any of these deaths are preventable, then the mother is guilty of criminal negligence and or manslaughter and or child abuse and or murder.

Confirms my point. Relatively few are due to rape.

32,000 a year is few?
Relative to all births, yes. Making laws on exceptions is silly. You talk as if most births are due to rape. The aren't.
According to a September 2016 study by Alex Nowrasteh at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, some 3,024 Americans died from 1975 through 2015 due to foreign-born terrorism. That number includes the 9/11 terrorist attacks (2,983 people) and averages nearly 74 Americans per year.  Since 9/11, however, foreign-born terrorists have killed roughly one American per year. Six Americans have died per year at the hands, guns, and bombs of Islamic terrorists (foreign and domestic). [LINK]

74 people a year?  WTFC?

"Making laws on exceptions is silly."

You think the floozy who voluntarily spread her legs should escape the responsibility of birth. You want the scuzzy drug addict to escape the responsibility of addiction. And you want others to pay for it.
It is not a crime to get pregnant and having children is not a punishment.  Liberals and conservative both agree that we should incarcerate criminals, including drug addicts who break the law.  WE AGREE ON THIS.  Liberals (and even some conservatives) also believe we should have programs that are designed to help people break their addictions when they ask for help.  This has nothing to do with personal responsibility.

I'm saying it is not possible to help all of them.
This argument is nonsensical because it applies to every conceivable task.  Your logical fallacy is "raising the bar to 100%".  We can never fix all road damage, therefore why bother?  We can never incarcerate all criminals, therefore why bother?  We can never kill all insects, therefore why bother?  We can never prevent all accidents, therefore why bother?

I merely suggested that current law is not prepared to address every miscarriage.
Why not?
Because miscarriages are often barely detectable and most go unnoticed or unreported.

If individual human life with the full protection of the law begins at the moment of conception, these are all potential murder cases that should be investigated.

Is it sensible to base personhood on technology?
What?  Individual human life with the full protection of the law begins (EITHER) at birth, when the cord is cut (OR) at the moment the sperm penetrates the ovum.

If you want to cut the cord at 5 months, that's fine with me baby!  ECTOGENESIS FTW!!!

Arguments are not paintings, they are knives. Tools.
Your conjoined twins example is exceptionally rare and does not apply to the mother/embryo relationship because the twins are roughly of equal capability and physical development.

PLUS, didn't you say, "Making laws on exceptions is silly"?

Because you said the baby is not human, AND, it is part of the mother.
In the same way that a genetically mutated tumor is technically "NOT an individual human being with the full protection of the law" and simultaneously "part of the mother".

The only example you gave was of a baby.
The example I gave was of human chimeras, not "a baby".  LOOK.  IT.  UP.

I cannot save everyone. So I take care of my citizens first.
Embryos are not citizens.  True Fact.

What a people do with their country (and what they discuss with their politicians) is a matter of privacy
Have you heard the term "public policy"?  Do you know what it means?  No part of this is private.

I've honestly never even heard anyone suggest that a nation (itself) has some sort of right to privacy.
Topic's author
#213
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
...often contribute to miscarriage
Miscarriages are not automatically crimes. Using your brain will not hurt you.

It is not a crime to get pregnant...
But it is selfish and stupid to spread your legs, and then kill the baby that develops.

having children is not a punishment.
Nor should it be a death sentence for the child.

This argument is nonsensical...
Stop being stupid. No one can help everyone.

We can never fix all road damage, therefore why bother?
Stop being stupid and deceitful. I never said "why bother". I help who I can, and who I think deserve help will be decided by me, not you or some other liberal moron.

Because miscarriages are often barely detectable and most go unnoticed or unreported.
Then there is no problem with them.

....these are all potential murder cases that should be investigated.
How can they be investigated if the go by unnoticed or unreported? Again, are you trying to be stupid?

If you want to cut the cord at 5 months, that's fine with me baby!
I did not want to cut the cord, that is just your stupidity misleading you. You claim a baby is not a person as long as it is dependent on the mother for survival. So then your definition of personhood depends on how early technology can make baby survive outside the mother. That is stupid. No wonder you tried to dodge that point by pretending to be obtuse.

Your conjoined twins example is exceptionally rare 
The frequency doesn't matter. If as you claim the baby and the mother are one person because they are physically connected, then so are conjoined twins. I don't need you to agree, logic will roll on without you.

PLUS, didn't you say, "Making laws on exceptions is silly"?

I did. Yet you keep trying to do so.

In the same way that a genetically mutated tumor is technically "NOT an individual human being with the full protection of the law" and simultaneously "part of the mother".
Repeating a lie will not make it true. There is no such thing as a "genetically mutated tumor". It is nonsense. You are just pitifully ignorant of genetics. A baby is human, regardless of whether the law affords it protection. And a baby is not the mother, and no amount of silly semantics will change that.

The example I gave was of human chimeras, not "a baby".
So it was human? Concession noted. And your chimera came about from a fertilized egg, or what is commonly called a baby. You should be ashamed to lie like this.

Embryos are not citizens.  True Fact.
I beg to differ. Every person conceived here or having citizens as parents is a citizen. Plus who I chose to save is my business, not yours.

Have you heard the term "public policy"? 
Within a country yes. American public policy is no business of say, Russia. If a woman, with people within her, can have privacy, so can a country, with people within it, have privacy.

I've honestly never even heard anyone suggest that a nation (itself) has some sort of right to privacy.
Which is why you liberal dweebs think its OK for foreigners to just walk into America. You try to take an impromptu stroll into Iran or North Korea and you'll see if countries value privacy.

Once we deport some foreign criminal back to his country, what happens inside there is not our business.
#214
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
What if we deport a criminal from, say, New York to Chicago?   They're futher apart than London and Paris.
#215
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Miscarriages are not automatically crimes. Using your brain will not hurt you.
Nobody said "all miscarriages are automatically crimes."  You're fabricating a strawman by moving the goalposts and raising the bar to 100%.

What I actually said was that (IFF) an individual human with the full protection of the law sparks into existence at the moment of conception (THEN) all miscarriages are potentially crimes and should be investigated as such.

For example, if a random dead human body is discovered, it is examined for evidence of foul play.

(IFF) you consider a zygote has the same legal protections as a citizen, (THEN) every dead zygote deserves examination and investigation.

I really don't understand how you can ostensibly believe that abortion is a human atrocity, and at the same time maintain that preventable miscarriages are nothing to worry about.

But it is selfish and stupid to spread your legs, and then kill the baby that develops.
Give me a call when being selfish and stupid become crimes.

having children is not a punishment.
Nor should it be a death sentence for the child.
It's simply an assisted miscarriage.

If the mother drank excessive amounts of alcohol and ran a marathon every month, would that be a-ok in your opinion?

No one can help everyone.
Good point.  But using that (raising the bar to 100%) as an excuse to not even try is ridiculous.

I help who I can, and who I think deserve help will be decided by me...
Yes by you and your completely arbitrary emotional opinions. 

The only reason I'm even talking to you is to attempt to decipher your so-called "logical worldview".

Because miscarriages are often barely detectable and most go unnoticed or unreported.
Then there is no problem with them.
Perfect, so if abortions were barely detectable and went unnoticed and unreported, there would also be no problem with them.

How can they be investigated if the go by unnoticed or unreported?
By noticing them and reporting them.  By screening through raw sewage in search of precious zygotes, then matching the DNA to find the mother and then investigating any potential alcohol or drug usage or known genetic defect to determine if the miscarriage was preventable.  By forcing doctors to identify women who have reportedly been pregnant who did not also bear a child in the expected time period to investigators.  By tracking every home pregnancy test and making sure every positive results in at least one birth every single time.

I did not want to cut the cord, that is just your stupidity misleading you. You claim a baby is not a person as long as it is dependent on the mother for survival. So then your definition of personhood depends on how early technology can make baby survive outside the mother.
An embryo is not an individual human being with the full rights of citizenship and protection of the law until the cord is cut.  True Fact.

Here's an example.

Nobody wants to kill puppies.

Nobody wants to kill embryos.

If someone decides they have too many puppies they take those puppies to a shelter, a no-kill-shelter if that option is available to them.

If someone decides they have too many embryos they take those embryos to a doctor, a no-kill-doctor if that option is available to them.

If we (as a team) take steps to provide ectogenesis services to embryos of five months or older, then seriously, nobody will have any desire to abort embryos of five months or older.  We just solved the abortion crisis!!!!!

The frequency doesn't matter. If as you claim the baby and the mother are one person because they are physically connected, then so are conjoined twins.
The mother and the embryo are one person because the embryo is 100% dependent on the mother.

The conjoined twins in your example are 50% dependent on each other.

PLUS, didn't you say, "Making laws on exceptions is silly"?
I did. Yet you keep trying to do so.
So now are you suggesting that "making laws on exceptions is sometimes perfectly logical"?

There is no such thing as a "genetically mutated tumor".
The example I gave was of human chimeras, not "a baby".
So it was human? Concession noted. And your chimera came about from a fertilized egg, or what is commonly called a baby. You should be ashamed to lie like this.
Red herring.  Nobody claimed a zygote/embryo is not comprised of human cells.  The human chimera is a fully independent, fully grown human being that appears perfectly normal, but has some internal organs that have the DNA of their prenatal sibling.  In other words, some parts (organs) of this fully grown adult human being do not have the same DNA as other parts (organs) of the same human being.  These human chimeras can be male or female.

Embryos are not citizens.  True Fact.
I beg to differ. Every person conceived here or having citizens as parents is a citizen. Plus who I chose to save is my business, not yours.
Unfortunately your opinion has nothing to do with who is legally considered a citizen and who isn't.

Once we deport some foreign criminal back to his country, what happens inside there is not our business.
When a woman deports a foreign invader from her sovereign body, what happens to it outside is nobody's business.


Topic's author
#216
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@keithprosser

What if we deport a criminal from, say, New York to Chicago?   They're futher apart than London and Paris.
Doesn't apply because New York begins with the letter "N" and Chicago with the letter "C".


Topic's author
#217
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
What I actually said was that (IFF) an individual human with the full protection of the law sparks into existence at the moment of conception (THEN) all miscarriages are potentially crimes and should be investigated as such.
You just added in "potentially". Your concession is noted.

(IFF) you consider a zygote has the same legal protections as a citizen, (THEN) every dead zygote deserves examination and investigation.

If it is noticed. If it is reported. If it is suspicious. Sure.

...preventable miscarriages are nothing to worry about.
I did not say preventable miscarriages are nothing to worry about. Lying will not help you.

Give me a call when being selfish and stupid become crimes.
Concession noted. Abortion is immoral.

If the mother drank excessive amounts of alcohol and ran a marathon every month, would that be a-ok in your opinion?
What business of mine  are marathon runners and heavy drinkers?

But using that (raising the bar to 100%) as an excuse to not even try is ridiculous.
So then tell it to those who are not even trying.

Perfect, so if abortions were barely detectable and went unnoticed and unreported, there would also be no problem with them.
No, people would still see them on TV and still report them. Lol, sorry, this level of stupidity demands sarcasm. If they are undetected and unnoticed, no one is going to know Einstein.

By screening through raw sewage in search of precious zygotes...
Stop being stupid. We don't do that for adult people now, why would we do that for the unborn when we don't know if the miscarriage was anyone's fault? And what would you learn from the zygote? Expecting to find knife marks? We don't assume foul play unless something is suspicious.

An embryo is not an individual human being with the full rights of citizenship and protection of the law until the cord is cut.  True Fact.
Truth joined to a lie are still lies. An embryo is an  individual human person . That is a scientific fact. The law does not change reality.

Nobody wants to kill embryos.
That is another lie. You want to kill them. Many do. No one has to kill an embryo, yet they do.

And if an embryo is not a human or alive as you claim, why would anyone hesitate to kill it?

...take those embryos to a doctor, a no-kill-doctor
Smarmy stupidity. The embryo is alive. After the abortion, it is dead. Your phrase, "no-kill" unadulterated stupidity.

...nobody will have any desire to abort embryos of five months or older. 
Stupidity. The desire to kill babies do not stem from a lack of ectogenesis services (whatever that is), it comes from a lack of morality. Basing personhood on technology is cold and stupid.

The mother and the embryo are one person because the embryo is 100% dependent on the mother.
Ad-hoc nonsense. Dependency does not make two people one. That is just an arbitrary standard you made up to rationalize killing babies.

The conjoined twins in your example are 50% dependent on each other.
No sir. Many conjoined twins share vital organs and cannot be separated. They are inseparable. But your 50% is just more of your ad-hoc nonsense.

So now are you suggesting that "making laws on exceptions is sometimes perfectly logical"?
Read what I said, not suggest what you wish I'd said. Lying will not win you arguments.

There is no such thing as a "genetically mutated tumor".

Full stop
Full stupidity. Your claim is that cancer cells are genetically distinguishable from the host. They are not. Really, you are just ignorant on genetics.

The example I gave was of human chimeras, not "a baby".
So it was human? Concession noted.

Red herring.  Nobody claimed a zygote/embryo is not comprised of human cells.
You said the zygote was not human. Would you like to take that back?

..that have the DNA of their prenatal sibling.
The sibling being a baby. Lol. We can explore this one for as long as you like. This only proves my point, the baby and the mother are genetically different, and thus not the same person. And the only genetically different cells in the anyone, will be from a baby or a transplant.

Unfortunately your opinion has nothing to do with who is legally considered a citizen and who isn't.
Fortunately, we are debating who is a person. The law changes, reality doesn't.

When a woman deports a foreign invader from her sovereign body, what happens to it outside is nobody's business.
Please stop being stupid. "Outside" her body holds no right of privacy. And immigrants are born elsewhere, a baby is in it's country in the womb. It is not a foreigner, and as such cannot be deported.

Liberal logic.
#218
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
You just added in "potentially". Your concession is noted.
When you fail to understand my statements, I employ different words and phrases.  It's called "communicating".

Your "rush to declare victory" is noted.

I've maintained from the beginning of this conversation that preventable miscarriages are potentially crimes.

If it is noticed. If it is reported. If it is suspicious. Sure.
I am ever so glad that we can agree on this.

I did not say preventable miscarriages are nothing to worry about. Lying will not help you.
Nobody every accused you of saying such a thing.  This is a hypothetical premise.

Concession noted. Abortion is immoral.
Your "rush to declare victory has been noted.  Your opinion that abortion is immoral is also noted.

What business of mine  are marathon runners and heavy drinkers
Normally, not much, but if that drunken marathon runner is currently gestating a fully independent citizen, then they are guilty of at a minimum, child endangerment and potentially manslaughter and or murder.

Perfect, so if abortions were barely detectable and went unnoticed and unreported, there would also be no problem with them.
If they are undetected and unnoticed, no one is going to know Einstein.  
I am ever so glad we can agree on this as well.

Now, if only we could grant women and doctors some kind of right to privacy or something...

By screening through raw sewage in search of precious zygotes...
Stop being stupid. We don't do that for adult people now, why would we do that for the unborn when we don't know if the miscarriage was anyone's fault? And what would you learn from the zygote? Expecting to find knife marks? We don't assume foul play unless something is suspicious.
If someone suspected a bunch of chopped up homeless people were in the sewer, we'd probably investigate for potential criminal behavior.

I can guarantee that there are zygotes in the sewers.  We just need to find them.

We can match the DNA to the mother and then test the mother for drug and or alcohol abuse or genetic deformity to make sure justice is served.

Truth joined to a lie are still lies. An embryo is an  individual human person . That is a scientific fact. The law does not change reality.
(IFF) an embryo is an individual human person (THEN) they are a foreign invader (AND) a woman has the right to deport them from her body.
#219
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) an embryo is an individual human person (THEN) they are a foreign invader (AND) a woman has the right to deport them from her body.
OMG rational, logical common sense being used to counter irrational, illogical lack of common sense fundamentalist.  Thank you for that one Bru7

Your like a candle of rational light i  and Ethang is like irrational soot ~~ or a puddle of melted wax that slowly becomes solidified as brain dead-like substance ~~_______

#220
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) an embryo is an individual human person (THEN) they are a foreign invader (AND) a woman has the right to deport them from her body.
is it though?  The egg is made by her, part of her, the "foreign invader" would be the sperm.  The body naturally attacks/rejects or in other ways attempts to rid itself of "foreign invaders" via the immune system.  Granted the immune system doesn't always work in some individuals as it should, but in general it does.  Consider organ transplants for example.

Topic's author
#221
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
It's called "communicating".
More honest people call it lying.

Your opinion that abortion is immoral is also noted.
So is yours. You agreed abortion was stupid and selfish. Selfishness is immoral. Aren't you glad?

...they are guilty of at a minimum, child endangerment and potentially manslaughter and or murder.
If you say so.

Now, if only we could grant women and doctors some kind of right to privacy....
They already have privacy. It's the innocent baby we are trying to get rights for now.

I can guarantee that there are zygotes in the sewers. 
Dead ones? Because your " no-kill" dispute that.

We can match the DNA to the mother....
How would you find the mother?

(IFF) an embryo is an individual human person (THEN) they are a foreign invader...
Stupidity.

....a woman has the right to deport them from her body.
A stupid premise does not render a valid conclusion. Your argument here is abject stupidity.

I will embarrass you for as long as you want to be embarrassed. Politeness is my middle name.
#222
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
(IFF) an embryo is an individual human person (THEN) they are a foreign invader (AND) a woman has the right to deport them from her body.
is it though?  The egg is made by her, part of her, the "foreign invader" would be the sperm.  The body naturally attacks/rejects or in other ways attempts to rid itself of "foreign invaders" via the immune system.  Granted the immune system doesn't always work in some individuals as it should, but in general it does.  Consider organ transplants for example.
The ovum is part of her and she can do whatever she wishes with it.

The sperm and the subsequent mutation of that sperm into a blastocyst/zygote/embryo is a (non-citizen) foreign invader.

As a sovereign individual, the mother can decide who can stay and who can go regarding her own body.
#223
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
The sperm and the subsequent mutation of that sperm into a blastocyst/zygote/embryo is a (non-citizen) foreign invader.
the other stuff I'm not discussing so trying to keep this focused.  Since the body doesn't reject it as a foreign body and in fact evolution has designed the body to actually keep and protect it, I'm not convinced of your claim.  Is this just your opinion or is there some proof to your claim?  Nature and evolution doesn't see it as a foreign body, normally.

Topic's author
#224
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
The sperm and the subsequent mutation of that sperm into a blastocyst/zygote/embryo is a (non-citizen) foreign invader.
It isn't part of the mother anymore?

Now its the sperm alone that mutates? You can't mention the egg as long as you're waxing stupid about foreign invaders eh? You are trying to be stupid aren't you?
#225
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The sperm and the subsequent mutation of that sperm into a blastocyst/zygote/embryo is a (non-citizen) foreign invader.
the other stuff I'm not discussing so trying to keep this focused.  Since the body doesn't reject it as a foreign body and in fact evolution has designed the body to actually keep and protect it, I'm not convinced of your claim.  Is this just your opinion or is there some proof to your claim?  Nature and evolution doesn't see it as a foreign body, normally.
It is a foreign body and would be rejected by the mother's immune system, however, it is able to evade detection.

The researchers discovered that embryo implantation sets off a process that ultimately turns off a key pathway required for the immune system to attack foreign bodies. As a result, immune cells are never recruited to the site of implantation and therefore cannot harm the developing fetus. [LINK]
#226
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
that's all well and fine, but again, nature and evolution have sought to protect it as similar things like normal flora.  The context of foreign invader I don't believe is correct in your usage.  Foreign invader is generally a pejorative.  If you'd like to call it a foreign body that may be more appropriate.  Regardless, a voluntary abortion is an unnatural thing going against the primary purpose of humans and evolution, which is to reproduce.  Or do you disagree that it's natural for humans to reproduce as it is their primary purpose?
#227
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
that's all well and fine, but again, nature and evolution have sought to protect it as similar things like normal flora. 
Cutting grass is technically "unnatural" and so is modern medicine and so is prepackaged cup-cakes.

In human physiology the decidua acts as a sanctuary city to protect the developing embryo (foreign invader) from T-cells (ICE agents).

The context of foreign invader I don't believe is correct in your usage.  Foreign invader is generally a pejorative.  If you'd like to call it a foreign body that may be more appropriate. 
I also believe it is unfair to call immigrants "foreign invaders".  C'est la vie.

Regardless, a voluntary abortion is an unnatural thing going against the primary purpose of humans and evolution, which is to reproduce.  Or do you disagree that it's natural for humans to reproduce as it is their primary purpose?
It is certainly not a human's primary purpose to reproduce.

For thousands of years, it has been common practice to abandon unwanted infants on the temple steps.

You can't argue that one particular activity that you personally believe is undesirable is primarily "wrong" because it is "unnatural" without addressing every other "unnatural" activity we commonly participate in.
#228
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
so what is the primary purpose of humans then if not to reproduce?  Abandoning infants is irrelevant, that action does not negate or invalidate a primal biological purpose.  Human bodies are designed to reproduce and create offspring, do you deny that?
You can't argue that one particular activity that you personally believe is undesirable is primarily "wrong" because it is "unnatural" without addressing every other "unnatural" activity we commonly participate in.
never said it was right, wrong or undesirable did I?

Many things are considered unnatural w/o any moral judgement.

invader noun

  1. a person or group that invades a country, region, or other place.
    "it is a country that has repelled all invaders"
    synonyms:
    attacker, aggressor, raider, marauder; 
    occupier, conqueror; 
    intruder, interloper
    "invaders surprised them at dawn"

now your insistence that it is a foreign body/invader means it's not part of the woman's body, and because it is foreign and not part of her body, she should be able to kill it, or are you claiming that it's both her body and foreign at the same time, which seems rather impossible.


#229
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so what is the primary purpose of humans then if not to reproduce? 
This question is an example of the teleological fallacy.

Human "purpose" is whatever it is whatever the individual decides it is.

Humans who are incapable of producing children are not automatically "purposeless".

Abandoning infants is an example of a natural tradition. 

Animals often abandon and or eat some or all of their young under a variety of circumstances.

Some humans and plants and animals are capable of reproduction.  It does not follow logically that "they were designed for this purpose".

You can't argue that one particular activity that you personally believe is undesirable is primarily "wrong" because it is "unnatural" without addressing every other "unnatural" activity we commonly participate in.
never said it was right, wrong or undesirable did I?

Many things are considered unnatural w/o any moral judgement.
Oh, ok, so do you believe that abortion is "unnatural" in the morally neutral sense of the term?

now your insistence that it is a foreign body/invader means it's not part of the woman's body, and because it is foreign and not part of her body, she should be able to kill it, or are you claiming that it's both her body and foreign at the same time, which seems rather impossible.
My position from the get-go has been that, 

(IFF) the embryo is part of the woman's body [100% dependent] (THEN) only she can decide to keep or discard it [like a genetically mutated tumor].

On the other hand,

(IFF) the embryo is NOT part of the woman's body [still 100% dependent] (THEN) it is a foreign invader and only she can decide to keep or discard it.
#230
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
Someone needs to explain "limited government" is not the same thing as limited by government....

#231
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm speaking from an evolutionary stand point not modern times.  Ancient man wasn't that much higher than animals, their purpose was to reproduce and survive, they didn't know anything else, or do you disagree?  Our mind have changed but our basic biological function and needs have not.

You get getting into the weeds, I'm talking about pure biology, at this point morality is irrelevant.

if you are going to insist on misusing invader we'll just forget about that then.

(IFF) the embryo is part of the woman's body [100% dependent] (THEN) only she can decide to keep or discard it [like a genetically mutated tumor].
except that the comparison is grossly inaccurate, abortion in the context of what we are speaking is for convenience, choice, whatever the non medical reason is,  removing a tumor is totally unrelated.

if you'd like to pick a position of whether it is or is not part of the woman's body we might be able to continue, but bouncing back and forth between the 2 isn't anything I'm interested in doing.

#232
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so what is the primary purpose of humans then if not to reproduce?
There is no intrinsic purpose to being human, and if there were, reproduction ain't it as those who are incapable of reproduction will agree.

#233
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
Are animals not driven to reproduce?  If not they wouldn't exist right?  Do you think human's are that far removed from animals with regards to biological drives and urges?  Those that are incapable of reproduction are not the norm.  The norm is 2 sexes that are capable of reproduction.  There are far too many exceptions to deal with so I'm not going there.
#234
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I'm talking about pure biology, at this point morality is irrelevant.
Animals often abandon and or eat some or all of their young under a variety of circumstances.

Not every single human is capable of and or inclined towards reproduction.

The ability and desire to reproduce is not an essential aspect of being human.

Even regarding primitive human cultures.

(IFF) the embryo is part of the woman's body [100% dependent] (THEN) only she can decide to keep or discard it [like a genetically mutated tumor].
except that the comparison is grossly inaccurate, abortion in the context of what we are speaking is for convenience, choice, whatever the non medical reason is,  removing a tumor is totally unrelated.
The same holds true for tonsils or an appendix or liposuction or a face-lift. 

(IFF) the embryo is part of the woman's body [100% dependent] (THEN) only she can decide to keep or discard [deport] it.

For any reason.

if you'd like to pick a position of whether it is or is not part of the woman's body we might be able to continue, but bouncing back and forth between the 2 isn't anything I'm interested in doing.
Your objection is moot.

I'll go with whatever you prefer.

(IFF) the embryo is NOT part of the woman's body [still 100% dependent] (THEN) it is a foreign invader and only she can decide to keep or discard it.

Both options lead back to the exact same place, both options lead to the principle of PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

What is "natural" and what is "medically necessary" are absolutely and completely beside the point.
#235
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
what happens after birth is irrelevant to the conversation, all that is relevant is 2 people/animals had sex and the female is pregnant.

PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY
Self-ownership is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity and be the exclusive controller of one's own body and life.

is that definition acceptable or would you like to provide a different one?
Topic's author
#236
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Reproduction is even one of the criteria determining life.

He didn't come back to his mention of only the sperm mutating while calling the fertilized egg an invader. Funny.

#237
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
there are plenty of things selectively ignored that didn't go unnoticed ;)
#238
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
there are plenty of things selectively ignored that didn't go unnoticed ;)
On both sides of this conversation.

Which is perfectly normal.

Please, by all means, only discuss/respond to what you personally find interesting.

#239
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
conversations are never one sided, those are called lectures.
#240
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
calling the fertilized egg an invader.
If the fertilized egg (100% the mother) is half the embryo, then she can do whatever she wishes with half the embryo.

If the fertilized egg (100% the mother) is half the embryo, then the other half is a foreign invader.

If someone came into your house and used some ingredients from your kitchen (ovum) to bake a gigantic cake in your oven (womb) that would take about nine months to complete, do you think it would matter to you what percentage of the cake was made from ingredients found inside your house (ovum) and what percentage of the cake was made from ingredients found outside your house (sperm)?

You would be completely in your rights to decide whether or not to keep the cake, or turn off the oven and throw it (deport it) out your window.