TWS1405

I would never block anyone for simply speaking their mind, that's just stupid.  Being offended is the dumbest reason of all to block someone. It isn't even possible to think or form an opinion without possibly offending someone. The only reason I would even think to block someone would be  interfering with my ability to use the site.

so you like trans people who 'flip' then? as in are you saying you hardline support the MtF and FtM trans?

The government’s sole pourpose is regulation of its people.  We are regulated so we can’t legally murder, rape, etc.  Abortion is merely another regulation.  But all regulations need justification.  In the case of abortion, that justification is it kills an innocent human being.  At least that’s what 95% of biologists believe.

Child costs don’t justify legalized murder. 

Argument 1: A zygote isn’t a human being.

Me response: That opinion goes against the opinions of 95% of biologists.

Argument 2: A zygote is a human being, but bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life.

My response: If that’s what you believe, then you would have to be fine with a conjoined twin killing their twin in the name of bodily autonomy.  They are connected, so if bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life, then you would have to support one conjoined twin’s right to kill their twin.  I have met people that defended that view and I think most normal people don’t.  But if it’s not acceptable to kill your conjoined twin in the name of bodily autonomy, what makes abortion any different?

Argument 3: A kid set up for adoption gets messed up so badly it’s worse than death.

Response: The vast majority of foster kids get adopted within 5 years and the foster system makes sure the parents are competent and not child rapists or abusers.

English ought to actually invent tbe [sic] neutral gender term.

I tend to block all bigot, racist, atheists. Turns out there's a lot on this site.

->@WyIted

Well he is blocked by about 9 members so he could be referring to anyone.

@TWS1405

Seeing as there is a big push on the left to argue cops are bad and the law is racist

If policing doesn't make a person racist, they are probably too dumb to be in law enforcement. 

All of the human being photos you pictured are all merely clumps of cells. What makes one clump of cells different from another clump of cells?

It is for this reason virtually all biologists disagree with you and claim human life begins at fertilization.

That zygote you cited is considered just as much human, from a biological standpoint, as all the other photos of people you gave. Because, at the end of the day, from a biological standpoint, you and I are clumps of cells too.

And since we have no idea, from a scientific standpoint, how life force works, you can't make a claim that the zygote has no consciousness or no soul or any such similar claims because it is an entirely unprovable assertion.

So, once again, you demonstrate your lack of expertise on biology and resort to endless appeals to ridicule and irrational rants instead of citing serious academic texts or rigorous defenses of your position based on facts, logic, and intellectual acumen.

I recommend reading this rigorously documented article in an internationally recognized think tank concerning facts about Abortion, because you clearly need to learn more on this topic:

https://justfacts.org/abortion

George Floyd = black privilege

Oh yeah, what could possibly be a sign of black privilege? A black man being kneeled on to the point they suffocate! For a crime that does not guarantee death penalty!

Jada Pinkett Smith = black privilege

Will Smith = black privilege

Pretty sure in-today the entertainment field is all flooded "Rich-privilege", which they probably have. I don't think they got into film academy by audition just because they are black or something. The rest would probably be some works requiring actual black roles which they handle, and thus is not black privilege. Please explain more, TWS.

Over the past decade and beyond, any non-person of color could be fired, blacklisted, and ostracized for innocuous things said and/or done whereas if a person of color did the same thing would be either ignored or given a pat on the back for saying or doing so. This, by definition black privilege (or even Hispanic privilege), not white privilege.

Pretty sure there was a report done in the past decade that black-sounding names are less likely to be picked by interviewers, etc. This goes both ways. I don't think a black guy would not be fired if the most notable thing they did in the office was setting it on fire. What would be that one thing that would get White workers fired but not Black people?

thanks for the ad hom and avoiding my argument

Interesting, a new member telling old members how the forum works, and a racist appealing to "diversity", that's not something you see everyday.

Oh wait, yes it is, in fact it's two of the basic principle taught in the Klan's "How to disrupt on-line discussion boards 101" class.

You have not cited a single definition of personhood.

You have not cited a single definition of a human.

You have not cited a single instance or reputable source stating a pregnancy is not a human being.

And yet I need to prove my assertions?

If you assert a baby has no personhood, you need to defend that.

If you assert a baby's life does not begin at conception, you need to defend that.

Your argument is irrational, and getting more irrational by the second.

I, on the other hand, have continued to cite reputable sources to defend my claim. I have supplied evidence, you have not. Who do you think is living his life in the Dunning Kruger effect currently? A person who cites sources, argues rationally and prefers to stick to the facts and data, or the person who responds with insults and doesn't offer proof of his assertions or definitions?

Infants, young children, and crippled geriatrics are all good examples of people who are unviable.

Is it ethical to euthanize infants, young children and crippled geriatrics because they can't survive on their own? 

This is a debate about huma procreation, abortion, and "fetal viability" where gestational development is concerned.

Viability can not be the basis for being a human being. Otherwise, it is ethical to murder infants, young children and crippled geriatrics.

I think your circumventing my argument. Your wasting my time. 

You keep saying reading comprehension matters but you then proceed to misread my statements and those of biologists and even the federal law repeatedly.

Also, insulting people doesn't make you smart, if you have to resort to ad hominem and appeal to ridicule then that means you can't actually attack the position. Your arguments are fallacious and an if-by-whiskey attempt at credibility and therefore irrational.

If you want to simply assert your own personal definition of personhood without any logic or reason or even a study or statement of fact associated with it, then so be it. But biologists, world religions, and the U.S. code have all assigned personhood to a preborn human. I am simply repeating what is already being said by others.

It isn't just my own personal opinion that a baby is a human. It is the opinion of almost every biologist in surveys, and they (and I) base said opinion on the current known science.

If you disagree, then assert facts and studies and reality as your point of contention, not insults. Insults are not arguments, they are irrational statements masquerading as intelligence when there is none present in the actual argument.

Reece101

-->@TWS1405

Yeah i’ve been canceled a few times too. Probably for different reasons though. It’s a form of power to them because they still reply to my stuff. ,

There is no god. 

you clearly dont understand God. He is necceasry for the understnading of logic. your very ability to dicern the statement "there is no god" presupposses the existence of god. you are stealing from god to argue against him. 

>@TWS1405

There is no god. 

you clearly dont understand God. He is necceasry for the understnading of logic. your very ability to dicern the statement "there is no god" presupposses the existence of god. you are stealing from god to argue against him. 

@Polytheist-Witch

yes but the ockams razors finds that 1 is less than 4 so. why add the burden of other gods?

-->@TWS1405

There is no god. 

you clearly dont understand God. He is necceasry for the understnading of logic. your very ability to dicern the statement "there is no god" presupposses the existence of god. you are stealing from god to argue against him. 

-->@TWS1405

So when does it become a human? Right now, you and I are collections of cells. What makes our cells any more relevant than a preborn human's cells? Every living thing is comprised of clumps of cells. A preborn human is no different.

If human life begins at conception, a point you agree with, then it follows that it is a human at conception. Or else it would not be human life, it would just be life. So if it is a human at conception, and it is alive, then it is murder to kill it premeditatively with malice according to the U.S. Code.

Btw, the U.S. Code does qualify preborn humans as life, and does charge intentional murder for it when a pregnant woman is killed. It is in 18 U.S. Code § 1841 paragraph 2c:

So it isn't irrelevant. The question is over whether abortion is murder and the U.S. Code for murder would qualify.

There is a legal definition of murder and, in some cases, it is murder to kill a baby in the womb.

-->@TWS1405

Obviously, I'm not talking about virtue of humanity. Wrong definition. 

Humanity = the necessary characteristics of being part of human race or a human being.

Nowhere did I ever state that "human life only begins at viability," that's your strawman version.

Human being = human life

You don't think a fetus is a human being until the point of viability.

 In fact, I have repeated stated it is human in origin, but being human in origin does not equate to being [a] human being. A decapitated head (or any removed body part) of a woman (or man) found at a crime scene with no body is clearly human in origin, but it doesn't make that human head = to [a] human being, now does it!! No, it does NOT!

Condescending, but yes. Something human in origin is not necessarily a human. Why does the preborn get the status of human being instantly when it becomes viable and not this status before 22 weeks? Viability can not be the only answer. 

A person who is unviable still persists being a human being. You can't simply pull the plug on comatose patients.

What is a human being has moral implications? The definition is important for both arguments.