Every pro-lifer always, without fail, gets it wrong on abortion.

Author: TWS1405
Abortion
pro-life
pro-choice
misnomer

Posts

Total: 313
Topic's author
#151
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Public-Choice
-->@TWS1405
Ben Shapiro's argument is it is always a human, not that it has potential to become one:
It is always human in origin (genetic makeup), but it is NOT [a] human (i.e., [a] human (being)); and that is where he, Walsh, et al are all consistently wrong.

This is a point that more than 90% of biologists assert is true. It is also backed by the fact that a baby in the womb meets all the biological determiners for life: growth, metabolism, reproduction, and response to stimuli. [1]

And those biologists would be wrong, as you are interpreting it that is. 

The italicized part is the definition of the basic biological criterion for cellular life, not [a] human (being).

The biggest flaw in abortionists' reasoning is this: they make arbitrary, unscientific claims for when a human being becomes a human being.
Others might, I do not. And you have not proven otherwise.

Show me a science textbook that says a human being is only a human being when it is born? Or what about a biological study that proves pre-birth humans are not human beings.
Does an acorn = an oak tree?
A sunflower seed = a sunflower plant?
A chunk of unburned wood = charcoal (i.e., burnt wood)?
A drop of human blood = [a] human being?

FACT: Potentiality =/= Actuality. Never has. Never will. 

14A makes it clear, legally and social/culturally, birth = [a] person (i.e., [a] human being)). 

Any science textbook has pictures and a zygote  (potentiality) =/= [a] human being (actuality). FACT!

Tell me where geneticists have found that pre-birth humans do not have the requisite genetic makeup for being a human being?
I do not need to because I have not argued otherwise. But having the requisite genetic makeup (e.g., zygote, blastocyst, embryo) [a] human being does not make. Again, potentiality =/= actuality. Never has. Never will. 

Tell me where biologists have proven that a pre-birth human is not alive in the womb?
Don't have to, as I have not argued otherwise. At conception the basic criterion for cellular life is met. Cellular life =/= [a] human being. 

Genetically and biologically it is a human being. No amount of personal feelings can change that fact.
No, it is not [a] human being. And "no amount of personal feelings can change that fact."

Take a biological sample from a human organism and it will contain the same genetic material that tells you it came from a human being, but that sample =/= [a] human being.

Topic's author
#152
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@ahiyah
-->@TWS1405
= "I know you are, but what am I" childish banality.

Meaning, you have no intelligent rebuttal
  • You haven't offered any intelligent arguments, instead just relying on opinion and then repeating that same opinion over, and over again.
And yet I have, consistently, and you know it!! Proof is in the pudding. That pudding being your denialism and clear demonstration of the Dunning Kruger Effect with your sophomorically banal retorts. My position proffered is objective, not subjective. Big difference. 


  • You're too arrogant and too stupid for anyone to have a constructive and reasonable discussion with. 
Says the child spewing ad hominem attacks instead of actually addressing the factual accuracies of my argued position.

  • Several people have brought valid arguments, thoughts, and responses to this post, but because you're so narrow and seemingly incapable of critical thought, all you can do is dismiss them. 
Wow, fiction can be fun but that's all it is, fiction.

  • It is YOU who routinely uses insults and ad hominem attacks. This is to the extent that even the OP included blatant and childish attacks along the lines of "these people don't advocate my view on this matter, so they are stupid". 
Nope. That's your strawman fallacy take on a simple statement opening the thread for debate/discussion. 

  • In addition to that, you use extremely repetitive and poorly applied retorts. 
How cute, more psychological projection and delusions of grandeur on your part, little one.


Can you grasp that, or is it another "false equivalency fallacy"? 
Do not use terms you clearly do not understand let alone capable of using correctly. You embarrass yourself and your mamma. 

#153
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TWS1405
TWS1405 you were trained to use a gun to kill humans. 

You defined human being as:  =/= [a] human being (actuality). FACT!
Topic's author
#154
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Shila
-->@TWS1405
TWS1405 you were trained to use a gun to kill humans. 
Irrelevant red herring fallacy.

You defined human being as:  =/= [a] human being (actuality). FACT!

Quoting out of context, and inaccurate quoting. That is NOT what I said. 
#155
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TWS1405
-->
@Shila
-->@TWS1405
TWS1405 you were trained to use a gun to kill humans.
Irrelevant red herring fallacy.

You defined human being as:  =/= [a] human being (actuality). FACT!

Quoting out of context, and inaccurate quoting. That is NOT what I said.
Check your post#152.

You posted: Cellular life =/= [a] human being.

Topic's author
#156
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Shila
>@TWS1405
-->
@Shila
-->@TWS1405
TWS1405 you were trained to use a gun to kill humans.
Irrelevant red herring fallacy.

You defined human being as:  =/= [a] human being (actuality). FACT!

Quoting out of context, and inaccurate quoting. That is NOT what I said.
Check your post#152.

You posted: Cellular life =/= [a] human being.
I don't need to. I know what I wrote. You clearly did not since you misquoted me. 

Cellular life =/= [a] human being. That is a factually accurate statement. A zygote =/= [a] human being. Neither does a blastocyst, embryo, unviable fetus, or any other living cell within the human organism =/= [a] human being. 
#157
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TWS1405
-> @Shila
>@TWS1405
-->
@Shila
-->@TWS1405
TWS1405 you were trained to use a gun to kill humans.
Irrelevant red herring fallacy.

You defined human being as:  =/= [a] human being (actuality). FACT!

Quoting out of context, and inaccurate quoting. That is NOT what I said.
Check your post#152.

You posted: Cellular life =/= [a] human being.
I don't need to. I know what I wrote. You clearly did not since you misquoted me. 

Cellular life =/= [a] human being. That is a factually accurate statement. A zygote =/= [a] human being. Neither does a blastocyst, embryo, unviable fetus, or any other living cell within the human organism =/= [a] human being
You left out, “Any science textbook has pictures and a zygote  (potentiality) =/= [a] human being (actuality). FACT!”

You were trained to kill humans.
Topic's author
#158
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Shila
You and your misquoting/strawman arguments can just Fuck off. 
#159
ahiyah
ahiyah's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 73
0
1
3
ahiyah's avatar
ahiyah
0
1
3
-->
@Shila
Does he make the case why abortions are absolutely necessary to prevent more repetitive and poorly applied retorts?
No, I don't want to take away the only thing he's any good at!

He loves his logical fallacies, but doesn't seem to be aware that he is one himself.
#160
ahiyah
ahiyah's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 73
0
1
3
ahiyah's avatar
ahiyah
0
1
3
-->
@TWS1405
Oh no, you called me "little one"...I'm just soo offended now 😭🤣

What shall I do?! 

factual accuracies
What is it you've said that you think is so factually accurate?
#161
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Public-Choice
The biggest flaw in abortionists' reasoning is this: they make arbitrary, unscientific claims for when a human being becomes a human being.
We’re not talking about when a fetus becomes a human being, we’re talking about when it becomes a person. That has almost nothing to do with biology.
#162
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@TWS1405
Let's have a formal debate on this. I'm open to it.
#163
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
A person in this case is a human being. A fetus (which derives from the Latin for a baby) is always a human being. It can't possibly be anything different.
Topic's author
#164
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Public-Choice
-->@Double_R
A person in this case is a human being. A fetus (which derives from the Latin for a baby) is always a human being. It can't possibly be anything different.
Being human in origin does not make [a] human being.

A human liver cell (take any organ for that matter/example), when analyzed, is human in origin, contains DNA identifying it as human and the genetic makeup allowing one to determine the kind of tissue that it is (i.e., what organ it is) within the human organism (and whether it is male or female). That cell =/= [a] human being. 


Potentiality =/= Actuality

Never has. Never will. 
Topic's author
#165
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
->@Public-Choice
The biggest flaw in abortionists' reasoning is this: they make arbitrary, unscientific claims for when a human being becomes a human being.
We’re not talking about when a fetus becomes a human being, we’re talking about when it becomes a person. That has almost nothing to do with biology.
Is this your way of delineating from a biological argument to a legal one?

All things being equal, [a] human being = [a] person. However, there is a biological (physiological) argument vs a legal one. 
Topic's author
#166
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@ahiyah
factual accuracies
What is it you've said that you think is so factually accurate?
Everything. 
Stop acting like a little child and...
Prove me wrong. 
#167
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@TWS1405
@#75 of a different thread.

A human is not a monkey, I'd agree.
But the argument I was thinking on was personhood.

I would think,
That an educated, socialized, adult chimpanzee,
Has many qualities that a newborn baby does not have.

Advanced versions of,
Tool use, sign language, personality, intelligence.

. . .

I do not agree that a newborn human is the same as an adult human,
I don't think that's the point you were trying to make either,

. . .

If I was to sever my hand, it would not be a human,
It 'would be human,
A human's hand,
But it would not be a person,
Though it 'would be part of a person.

. . .

I am rambling, a bit incoherent, but you pinged me,
So I shall respond.
. . .

The below is not a 'got 'you question, I am only looking to understand your view by it, as I have not read but the beginning of this thread.

Is a baby not human before it leaves the mothers body?
I'm not talking about zygote or undeveloped fetus,
But a baby that is fully developed and let's say 10 minutes from birth,
Is it not human?
Topic's author
#168
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Lemming
-->@TWS1405
@#75 of a different thread.

A human is not a monkey, I'd agree.
But the argument I was thinking on was personhood.

I would think,
That an educated, socialized, adult chimpanzee,
Has many qualities that a newborn baby does not have.

Advanced versions of,
Tool use, sign language, personality, intelligence.
Still a false equivalency fallacy.
. . .

I do not agree that a newborn human is the same as an adult human,
I don't think that's the point you were trying to make either,
They ARE the same in as much that they are both [a] {an already born} human being.

. . .

If I was to sever my hand, it would not be a human,
It 'would be human,
A human's hand,
But it would not be a person,
Though it 'would be part of a person.
Had to read and re-read this, and in doing so, that is a correct use of an analogy. 
It demonstrates that to be human in origin does not make [a] human being. That we agree on.

. . .

The below is not a 'got 'you question, I am only looking to understand your view by it, as I have not read but the beginning of this thread.

Is a baby not human before it leaves the mothers body?
I'm not talking about zygote or undeveloped fetus,
But a baby that is fully developed and let's say 10 minutes from birth,
Is it not human?

Your use of the term "baby" is a misnomer. It should read....

"Is a fetus not human [just] before it leaves the mother's body?"

Of course, it is human in origin, and if viable, then yes, it is [a] human being. But it is not bestowed any legal rights as [a] person until BIRTH!


Topic's author
#169
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Public-Choice
-->@TWS1405
Let's have a formal debate on this. I'm open to it.
If you want to lose, sure.

Novice II challenged me in the recent past, but then went dead silent on the matter. 

But I suggest we finish this thread to its logical conclusion before we venture onto that path. We could learn from others that could be potentially used in this debate/discussion you propose. 
#170
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@TWS1405
I disagree that a newborn baby and an adult are both equal in regards to their personhood qualities.

I am of the opinion that a yet born, can be called a baby.

I am of the opinion that the yet born, 'ought have legal rights.
#171
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@TWS1405
Well I would be happy to beat you in a debate on this. I have heard virtually every silly left-wing and libertarian argument on abortion for years now. Not one of them were able to stand after the facts and logic were unearthed.
#172
ahiyah
ahiyah's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 73
0
1
3
ahiyah's avatar
ahiyah
0
1
3
-->
@TWS1405
Everything. 
haha

Not an answer. 
Topic's author
#173
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Lemming
-->@TWS1405
I disagree that a newborn baby and an adult are both equal in regards to their personhood qualities.
That is fine. You can disagree all you want. Doesn't change the fact that a born human child is = to an adult human being;in that they are both genetically biologically. physiologically. psychologically, and legally BOTH [a] human being.


I am of the opinion that a yet born, can be called a baby.
Misnomer. They cannot. Potentiality =/= Actuality. Never has. Never will. 



I am of the opinion that the yet born, 'ought have legal rights.

Fine, but the (American) world disagrees with you. The pregnancy has NO rights. And it never will. The girl/woman will ALWAYS come first, in one form or another. 
Topic's author
#174
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@ahiyah
-->@TWS1405
Everything. 
haha

Not an answer. 

OMG! You are such a child.

That WAS an answer. You keep refusing to address my arguments and attack me personally. Translation: you lose, I win. 
Topic's author
#175
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Public-Choice
-->@TWS1405
Well I would be happy to beat you in a debate on this. I have heard virtually every silly left-wing and libertarian argument on abortion for years now. Not one of them were able to stand after the facts and logic were unearthed.
For the record, I am a staunch conservative and constitutionalist. I believe in facts over emotive fiction. I also believe in demonstrated outcomes through longitudinal studies. 

Since you have yet to discredit/disprove any fact that I have put forth, well, it is predictable that you would lose in a debate with me on this subject matter. 
#176
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@TWS1405
If you were a constitutionalist you would be against abortion. Who else do you think the posterity is they spoke of? Apes? Cats? It was their children, and children exist in the womb, too, regardless of what you call them.

Idk what "conservative" means anymore since people keep changing the definition to fit their beliefs.

If George Washington is a supposed "textbook" Burkean Conservative, then all Burkean Conservatives (also called paleoconservatives) are federalists who want a public nanny state and a welfare system.

But if Libertarians are "conservative" then we want an extremely small government that doesn't even have much of a military.

Or what about those neo-conservatives? They want to colonize the world for the U.S. of A. Not very conservative if you ask me.

And are you an originalist or a living-document constitutionalist? Both are technically considered "constitutionalists." I am an originalist.

I am a voluntaryist. We tend to be right-wing and capitalist, but a voluntaryist could be socialist too. I think everyone should be free to choose whatever governing structure they want and whatever culture and relationships they want. There should be absolutely zero coercion whatsoever.

#177
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@TWS1405
I don't see the difference of humanity, in an unborn and a born,
How does the time it takes for them to squeeze out of the mother, change their genetics?
Also still disagree that a newborn baby and an adult are both equal in regards to their personhood qualities, but that I'll leave aside.


It is common speech to refer to an unborn as a baby,
Did you feel the baby kick?
Did you feel the fetus kick?
One of these is a more common phrasing.

People are in disagreement of what the law ought be,
I disagree that an 'overwhelming majority say the unborn have 'no rights.
Topic's author
#178
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Public-Choice
-->@TWS1405
If you were a constitutionalist you would be against abortion. Who else do you think the posterity is they spoke of? Apes? Cats? It was their children, and children exist in the womb, too, regardless of what you call them.
Bringing other species into this debate specifically and wholly centered around a human issue demonstrates your single digit IQ on this subject. 

FFS! Children, in any context, denotes an already born human being. As such, there is NO child(ren) within the womb. None. That is just a FACT. Using the term "child," "children," or "baby" where the pre-born is concerned is an implicit misnomer. Period. Fact. Period. 

Idk what "conservative" means anymore since people keep changing the definition to fit their beliefs.
Your confessed ignorance is your problem and no one else's. 

If George Washington is a supposed "textbook" Burkean Conservative, then all Burkean Conservatives (also called paleoconservatives) are federalists who want a public nanny state and a welfare system.
This makes NO fucking sense. Smoking crack, are ya!?!


But if Libertarians are "conservative" then we want an extremely small government that doesn't even have much of a military.
Again, making no sense yet again. 


Or what about those neo-conservatives? They want to colonize the world for the U.S. of A. Not very conservative if you ask me.

huh? yeah...you ARE smoking crack, for sure. 

And are you an originalist or a living-document constitutionalist? Both are technically considered "constitutionalists." I am an originalist.
A factual realist. 


I am a voluntaryist. We tend to be right-wing and capitalist, but a voluntaryist could be socialist too. I think everyone should be free to choose whatever governing structure they want and whatever culture and relationships they want. 
ROTFLMAO!!!




Topic's author
#179
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Lemming
-->@TWS1405
I don't see the difference of humanity, in an unborn and a born,
That's your ignorant problem, not mine.


How does the time it takes for them to squeeze out of the mother, change their genetics?
It's not a change in genetics, but rather a change in gestational development within the womb.
Take the zygote, blastocyst, embryo or unviable fetus out of the womb BEFORE "fetal viability," IT DIES!!! Hence, it has no value, no worth, and it is of NO RELEVANCE> 


Also still disagree that a newborn baby and an adult are both equal in regards to their personhood qualities, but that I'll leave aside.


Fine. Disagree all you want. Just demonstrates the Dunning Kruger Effect on your part. 


It is common speech to refer to an unborn as a baby,
Did you feel the baby kick?
Did you feel the fetus kick?
One of these is a more common phrasing.

Fallacious appeal to emotion and ignorance is all that is. 

#180
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@TWS1405
I was talking 'specifically of an unborn, let's say ten minutes from a natural birth.

Though I'm aware you argue ability to live on their own, without being attached to the mother's body,
A baby hardly lives on their own,
The Greeks would abandon their babies and 'expect death,
Due to the fact they couldn't live on their own.

I disagree that referring to an unborn as a baby is an appeal to ignorance and emotion,
It is reference to one's child.

. . .

I am curious, Are you rude because,
Because you have lost interest in my opinion?
Because you think it will not effect my interest in this discussion?
Because you do not think you are being rude?
Other?