TWS1405

->@TWS1405

--> @Shila

I hat you just wrote absolutely zero sense!!! 

Cops are trained to defend themselves from an assailant using their taser against them. Because if they don’t and the cop gets tased, the assailant could and would take their service pistol and kill them and then others in their escape. 

Why wasn’t the taser secured before the officer approached Pamela Turner?

And what are police officers and society doing to help cops be seen as friendly protectors that have a code in the eyes of the predominantly black communities in US?

That, TWS, is the real root cause and real solution.

One  can defend a viewpoint without believing in it. 

--> @Elliott

I wonder if Lemming may be right and Shila could be a chatbot part of the time, and post human comments other parts of the time. Or be intentionally acting like a bot.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a part time bot/part time real person.

First of all, I'm drunk. But I'm also inspired. But then again, I have work in the morning, so don't expect too much.

But I wonder where it comes to certain individuals. Like, some of you right wingers are obviously decent people. But then you get the likes of TWS69 or who cares, a 70 year old man raving about blackwashing of Ariel the fucking dolphin or whatever she is. Or Trump gets the KKK, same shit.

-->@Shila

No one is white.

White is just a discriminatory remark made by people who have darker skin.

TWS1405

You just lost the debate/discussion. 

from the racist baby killer that doesn't mean much

Let us now talk about the many risks involved  in having an abortion . 

It took you 4 posts to get to the point.

--> @TWS1405

Okay, so you just don't know what an argument is...I see. 

ok baby killer

@zedvictor4

 abortion is the right of the mother to utilise surgical and medical procedures to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

• What is the argument for this? 
  

>@Lemming

-> @Shila

No, that I'll get a headache.

So you remember what happened the last time you did it.

-->@Shila

@Shila

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

Sorry, I am unwilling to discuss this with you,

'Might be I just don't get it,

But I think that you don't get it,

And I'm not interested enough in convincing you, to continue trying to convince you.

@TWS1405

Cannot have empathy for that which does not even exist, yet. 

But it does exist. You may not want to define it as a child, but it does exist.

In no world or society on this planet is a born child's rights more important than the adult's life.

Not in the least bit true. And you can test this. Try claiming self-defense when reciprocating against a child who has physically harmed you. I get your point, but your premise is lacking.

The adult contributes to society, a child does not.

Again, not the least bit true. Children do contribute. If you're speaking about submitting manual labor, then that would be the fault of the adult electorate and politicians who have enforced child labor laws.

Born human life (i.e., [a] human being/[a] person) does have value, a pregnancy does not until birth. A pregnancy is NOT "another human (being)".

An arbitrary division.

And since study after study has shown that unwanted children, those born to single parent homes, contribute greatly to the crime problem in human society, abortion reduces crime, among other social/cultural ailments.

This argument is such bullshit. Since you're all about the facts, I want a reference or argument from yourself that demonstrates causality. (No correlations.) 

The black out of wedlock birth rate went from 20% to over 70% at the turn of the civil rights movement, which resulted in an exponential increase in criminality among black male youth leading to career adult criminals. Unwanted children, children that a single parent simply cannot care for, becomes society's problem that costs more than just money to deal with. 

It started much earlier than that, especially at the end of World War II and Truman was in office.

->@TWS1405

As such, there is NO child(ren) within the womb. None. That is just a FACT.

Sigh... Here we go...

I shall be using a biology dictionary and a medical dictionary since this is the nature of what we are discussing.

Offspring: New organisms produced by a living thing. [1]

As per the biology dictionary above on the entry for humans:

"The zygote that forms from fertilization divides mitotically and lodges in the uterus to develop into an embryo. The human embryo undergoes the following major embryonic stages: blastula » gastrula » neurula. The embryonic phase covers the first eight weeks of gestation. By the ninth week, the embryo develops into a fetus." [2]

An embryo is specifically called human by biologists for one simple reason, all humans begin their life process as an embryo. Think of it like being a tadpole before becoming a frog. We don't claim the tadpole isn't a frog, because it is one, just not a fully-developed frog. So a human embryo is still a human, we just call it a fetus or an embryo.

So an embryo also counts as an offspring, because the embryo is a new organism produced by a living thing. Therefore, embryos are both human offspring and also the first stage of life for a human.

This is why biologists state that human life begins at conception, even pro-abortion biologists will generally admit this fact.

However, you may argue that it is a cell. Well, human beings are simply collections of cells.

This is evidenced from the entry for zygote from the same biology dictionary:

"The cells that sprung from the zygote will essentially have the same genetic composition throughout the body but eventually will acquire a special role or a distinct function as they are organized into tissues, organs, and systems." [3]

So the next question is why are humans different from tadpoles?

This is the question of the soul. And there is no reason to believe that fetuses lack a soul.

There is zero scientific justification for this. We also do not see a soul magically appear the second a baby is born. It comes out of the womb moving and even crying in some cases.

This is clear evidence that fetuses have a soul.

So my question to you is why do you choose to ignore biological evidence?

Why do you choose to ignore the cycle of life, the offspring created by us humans as human offspring, and choose to shut your ears to the biological facts that a baby is a baby even when it is an embryo?

Added10.06.22 07:51AM

-->@TWS1405

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. 

A zygote =/= [a] human being

A blastocyst =/= [a] human being

An embryo =/= [a] human being

An unviable 15 week fetus =/= [a] human being.

Potentiality =/= Actuality

Never has. Never will. 

A human is still a human even if it has less an organ or limb.

>@Public-Choice @TWS1405

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?

No, it’s my way of delineating from what matters to what doesn’t.

Biology is about chemical compounds, personhood is about what makes a person an individual. Chemical compounds is not the reason we value life.

Do I really need to go into any further detail?

->@TWS1405

I'll accept your insults and lack of evidence and reason as a resignation.

-->@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.

-->@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. 

-->@TWS1405

tf? 

Everything you've written is such trash. 

-->@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.

-->@TWS1405

Everything. 

haha

Not an answer. 

-->@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.

-->@TWS1405

Let's have a formal debate on this. I'm open to it.

"There is no limit to human stupidity" Einstein

-->@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.

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?

-->@Uragirimono

Here's some non-religious reasons:

• Empathy for the child. 
  

• Recognizing that children's rights are more important than women's rights.
  

• Moral consistency, or lack thereof.
  

• Recognizing that human life has value and that it is wrong to kill another human, even if it isn't fully formed yet.
  

• Taking responsibility and not choosing the easy way out. 
  

Point #2 is very important because in every single circumstance bar abortion, children are more important than female adults. Adults matter less than children, and certainly much less than infants, so why does that suddenly change when someone wants an abortion?

Why is it that when a woman wants to keep her baby, it is treated with the utmost care and consideration and all efforts are made to look after and embrace this baby by her, her family, her medical practitioners, and the rest of society, but when a woman decides that she doesn't want it it becomes this dispensible cluster of cells that is of no significance to her or the rest of us, and just needs to be disposed of in the most disgusting and brutal way?

I hate living in a society THAT stupid and weak. 

TWS1405 says elsewhere on this site,

"potentiality ≠ actuality" - TWS1405

 

But potential 'does equal actuality in a sense, to my mind,

An infant is not an adult,

Monkeys exist in actuality more 'persons than an infant,

Ah, and here my nihilism and absurdity rears it's head,

I find myself in difficulty with 'perfect logic, each step and justification shown,

But that's the horrible 'part of it,

I can't even justify 'myself, or other humans as much people as I am,

And my 'care fo-

Ach,

'Too absurd,

. . .

. . .

A zygote, a fetus, an infant,

Are they not all human?

Good luck. Atheists are liars and never give straight answers. 

factual accuracies

What is it you've said that you think is so factually accurate?

->@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.

-->@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.