-->
@hey-yo
Cited law excludes all humans before birth. Do you agree?
Nope. You're not reading the cited law correctly. What you just did was use a strawman argument. Try again.
How can someone be pro-trans and also support oppressing anti-vaxxers at a legal level?
Posts
Total:
56
-->
@RationalMadman
I dont know enough to address o.p. many parts there that divert into other discusions. However for the title.
One thing to consider is how does everything affect us on individual level vs. community or group level. This is probably how some may seperate the issue that may relate to trans vs anti-vax .
Some argue that everyone should be required to vax because it affects people around them. Where as being trans does not affect everyone in the same way.
My criticism of this is the purpose of vaxinations to begin with. If it helps you prevent or lessen sickness then there should not be a problem if someone next to you is not. This would exclude, to some regard, parents and kids. If a parent infects a kid, that may be another emotional conciquence.
One thing to consider is how does everything affect us on individual level vs. community or group level. This is probably how some may seperate the issue that may relate to trans vs anti-vax .
Some argue that everyone should be required to vax because it affects people around them. Where as being trans does not affect everyone in the same way.
My criticism of this is the purpose of vaxinations to begin with. If it helps you prevent or lessen sickness then there should not be a problem if someone next to you is not. This would exclude, to some regard, parents and kids. If a parent infects a kid, that may be another emotional conciquence.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Strawman requires me to say something is your opinion and then argue that position. I never said what your opinion is, in my question which highlights what I see the cited law in doing.
If you do not agree that a human in the womb is excluded. May you provide a passage where such a human is mentioned?
If you do not agree that a human in the womb is excluded. May you provide a passage where such a human is mentioned?
-->
@hey-yo
Strawman requires me to say something is your opinion and then argue that position. I never said what your opinion is, in my question which highlights what I see the cited law in doing.If you do not agree that a human in the womb is excluded. May you provide a passage where such a human is mentioned?
You clearly do not understand what a strawman fallacy is. Not surprised.
You created a strawman regarding the cited law.
"Cited law excludes all humans before birth."
That's not what the cited law states. What you did there was a strawman of the cited law.
Try again. And with cogent sentences. Your gibberish is getting more difficult to decipher.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Hm...
Ok so first one points out that I have to argue some point of your position. i am not. I asked for clarity on your position. But Ill just skip this cause there be no point in argueing for fallacies.
A pregnancy is not [a] person with all the rights, privileges and equal protection of the laws bestowed upon actual persons upon their birth. The pregnant girl/woman is [a] person. A pregnancy is not. It's even codified into law, the definition of what [a] person, human being, child and individual shall be understood to mean.
- (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
- (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
- (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
- (Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)
Ok. If we read homo sapiens and after birth. We can see that a homo sapien before birth is not included as being described by the words person, child, etc. So that when we read those words within that script, we do not read it to mean or refer to a fetus or an embryo.
As you say, "rights, privileges and equal protection of the laws bestowed upon persons upon their birth."
If you have to be born to be included as protected under the law then you are excluded from those protections.
What is your intent to provide the cited laws????
Wont let me edit
."If you have to be born to be included as protected under the law then you are excluded from those protections. "
.....excluded if you are not yet born.
-->
@hey-yo
Your linguistic skills are found wanting.
-->
@hey-yo
Do not be offended.
When TWS1405_2 can't get their own way.
They will accuse you of having poor linguistic skills, and bring out all the fallacy criticisms that they can think of.
-->
@zedvictor4
Uh, it has nothing to do with getting my own way…like getting 🍕 instead of 🌮 . 🙄
When another epically fails to comprehend that which they read, cherry picks parts to rebut (usually with a strawman), retorts sophomorically, and/or just throws pompous condescension (like you often do)…you reap what you sow regarding my apt observations and apropos use of adjectives to describe the observed behavior, demeanor, and attitude.
Truth hurts, doesn’t it!!!
-->
@hey-yo
What is your intent to provide the cited laws????
Really? 🤦♂️
If you have to ask, you’re never going to understand it.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Was that a self appraisal?
-->
@zedvictor4
Troll 🧌
-->
@TWS1405_2
Fantasitc. So what is your intent on posting the cited legal definition?
What message are you providing?
-->
@hey-yo
Go back and read my original comment with that cited law and who I replied to. Then look at their comment as it relates to the content and context of my post with the cited law. There you will find your answer.
-->
@TWS1405_2
I did. Just giving you chance to speak for yourself.
But do not want to? That is fine. You provided a legal definition to imply that a fetus, for example, does not posses legal protection under the law because a fetus is not considered a person under the law. Therefore there is an impression that a fetus should not have protection under the law.
That is how I read your post. Therefore I responded because legal definitions can be incorrect as there are historical examples of them being incorrect. Legal definitions and the law itself can posses a moral wrong within them. Just like past laws that descriminate against minorities.
However, you dont need a law to explicitly say " x is excluded." For example, many lgbt+ advocates express the same message. Their rights are being violated because the written law does not explicitly include them.
So I say the law does not go far enough and (whether with intent or not) the legal definition excludes humans prior to birth.
Your cited quote is from The Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Why was this bill pushed for in 2002?
-->
@hey-yo
did. Just giving you chance to speak for yourself.
No, you did NOT!! The stupidity in your consistent retorts demonstrate that.
By meaning was plain and crystal clear. It b ended no further explaining. The fact that you kept asking for an explanation is proof in and of itself if your ignorance. Not to mention lack of reading comprehension skills.
-->
@TWS1405_2
No, you did NOT!! The stupidity in your consistent retorts demonstrate that.
How did I not give you a chance to explain yourself if I asked three times, "what is your intent?"
Wow! my first post went off exactly what you asked for. "read it yourself." But you still complained.
By meaning was plain and crystal clear. It b ended no further explaining. The fact that you kept asking for an explanation is proof in and of itself if your ignorance. Not to mention lack of reading comprehension skills.
See! You even admit that I asked for an explaination. thats letting you speak for yourself.
But I see no actual response to what your intent and message was. I must be correct that you think humans prior to birth are not humans and should not have protection within the law.
-->
@hey-yo
Ignoratio elenchi 🤦♂️🙄🤦♂️
-->
@TWS1405_2
Lol. Ignoratio elenchi?
Fallacy or not does not change the conclusion as true.
Whether you like it or not asking for explaination is your chance to speak your mind. If you refuse it, then you refuse it. Own that.
Your cited quote is from The Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Why was this bill pushed for?
-->
@TWS1405_2
Come on buddy, sing with me...
Ignooooratio, sophomoooorrric banal elenchi,
Ignoooratio, trollophilic acts are sketchy,
Ignoorattiooooo!!! Hail ad hominem spaghetti,
Meatballs on the goooo!!! Shaped like the testes of a Yeti!
-->
@RationalMadman
Hey there chicken little, you’re still here? 😂
-->
@TWS1405_2
I see you read my debates.
-->
@RationalMadman
I see you read my debates.
Barely a single one. Maybe a line or two to determine how/why you lost.
-->
@hey-yo
The trans agenda is a brainwashing scheme. Not individual trans people but the trans agenda at a political level.
It blackmails all who are true to science and other forms of therapy for the gender dysphoric who have other psychiatric issues, to not dare say shit against them with their real names attached or their entire career will end.
They are brainwashing children now.
-->
@RationalMadman
I doubt the brainwashing part, but some persons who speak against the trans delima after hating ther experience as a trans person(doin the whole 9 by surgery and chemical therapy), have been silenced. So unfortunate that someone who could improve the situation is shun.
-->
@hey-yo
but some persons
all. every single one. They get isolated and pushed aside until they're only allowed to say 'for me it didn't work out' instead of 'I was tricked and this is so terrible and unfair'.