TWS1405

>@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.

-->@TWS1405

TWS1405 you were trained to use a gun to kill humans. 

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

-->@TWS1405

How it works. Clown.

For sure, I expected nothing better from you.

-->@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.
  

• You're too arrogant and too stupid for anyone to have a constructive and reasonable discussion with. 
  

• 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. 
  

• 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". 
  

• In addition to that, you use extremely repetitive and poorly applied retorts. 
  

Can you grasp that, or is it another "false equivalency fallacy"? 

-->@TWS1405

Ben Shapiro's argument is it is always a human, not that it has potential to become one:

https://youtu.be/LfmA_ufFDCg?t=471

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]

The biggest flaw in abortionists' reasoning is this: they make arbitrary, unscientific claims for when a human being becomes a human being.

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.

Tell me where geneticists have found that pre-birth humans do not have the requisite genetic makeup for being a human being?

Tell me where biologists have proven that a pre-birth human is not alive in the womb?

Genetically and biologically it is a human being. No amount of personal feelings can change that fact.

Do you know how much is the life of a black man worth in Minneapolis?

Person A: "I refuse to answer actually, but just stop because the mistakes exist."

-->@TWS1405

lol

You seem to be totally ignorant of the fact that *every* criticism you have in response to other people applies with complete accuracy to you. 

Fools will be fools, though. 

Nivuce_II: I just don't understand this dialogue method.

Person A: "You need to work on your punctuation, not to mention grammar."

Person B: "What mistakes do you think I'm making?"

Person A: "I refuse to answer actually, but just stop because the mistakes exist."

If you don’t recognize your own mistakes. You might need special help.

-->@TWS1405

Starting off with an ad hominem argument demonstrates not only the Dunning Kruger Effect, but that you also lost the debate/discussion before you even begin.

Says the man who repeatedly "starts off arguments" with ad homimen attacks!

You're absurd.

Once that embryo has formed, it has everything needed to enter the world as a baby if it is left unharmed

That is what I said. I suggest you take note of the words "if it (the embryo or fetus) is left unharmed", because that is important in establishing what their potential actually is and whether it's of significance or not. An embryo's potential is no more different to yours considering that they, like you, will do just fine if allowed to live.

No, it does not have everything needed to enter the world. Without fetal viability, that embryo dies upon entering the world too early.

And what? This means people should be allowed to abort the embryo that will become a fetus, which is then a baby?

Note: I don't really distinguish between "fetus" and "baby", as fetus just means offspring.

You clearly lack the requisite knowledge to comprehend fetal viability

So more "ur stupid cuz u dont agree wit me"...is that really all you've got? 

You do realize that you're just coming up with the lamest, most untroubling, and completely banal insults in practically every post you make? Can't you see how pathetic it makes you look? 

understanding it has no relationship to basic viability. 

In *your* opinion it has no relationship to "basic viability", and you are not the one who gets to decide whether an embryo or fetus is viable.

In criminal law, the U.S seems to consider an embryo/fetus as very viable because it is considered separate to its mother, and you can be punished for causing harm to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Wrong. It is a medical fact.

What about most babies requiring medical intervention? For instance, a baby needs to have its cord cut from the mother after birth...isn't that a medical intervention?

In my country, they also get their heartbeat, hearing, vision, etc. looked at before you can leave the hospital.

Do you even know what kind of medical interventions you're talking about?

Also, don't you think it's kind of limited on your part to have only one perspective on this matter? Your entire stance is based on "but it's not viable, it can't survive yet" (admitting to knowing that babies have survived *even* when they can still be aborted), and that is it. No considerations have been made for moral arguments or even other scientific arguments.

Essentially, you're just set on repeating the same old boring opinion. 

->@TWS1405

And your entirely superfluous comments are based upon what?

And how would you have any idea of a remote darters attitude and demeanour?

-->@TWS1405

Whoever liked this post is a fool, lol. 

Do you realize how stupid your first sentences actually are?

This would be a proper translation of what you said:

"dem guyz like Shapiro and Walsh are 2 stupid 2 get y abortion aint bad!"

That's such a profoundly predictable and unintelligent thing to say.

Also, you think that a zygote is just a potential baby.

While it may be true that a zygote and an embryo aren't a fully formed baby yet, it is also true that all life, even after you are born, is having the potential for something that would ordinarily come providing that you survive.

In your lifetime, you go through many stages to then finally die one day if you are lucky enough to make it to old age.

For instance, are you an old man yet? No. But do you have the potential to be providing nothing ends your life? Yes! A zygote, and embryo, WILL develop into a fetus, that WILL be someone's newborn baby if it does not die. Abortion forces the death of an embryo or fetus, and this ends its natural life path.

Once that embryo has formed, it has everything needed to enter the world as a baby if it is left unharmed. That's just like we have everything needed to make it another year if nothing, or no one, kills us. 

===================================

Another issue I would raise is your view that a baby is only viable once it can survive outside the womb without "medical intervention", which is a really vague and poorly explained stance. 

Most babies need some medical intervention to see if they're healthy, so does this mean they're not viable? What about premature babies? 

Moreover, were you aware that some babies have been known to survive at a stage where women can (and do) still get abortions?

• This is the problem with bodily autonomy arguments for abortion, at least that I have seen. They seem to entail absurd conclusions.  
  

The potentiality argument is one single argument for the pro-life position - the fetal potentiality position is not a requisite to the actual position. 

Reparations from who though.

Everyone is dead and society moved on.

As I said, all you are really advocating is Blacky v Whitey for cash.

So, someone might have a great great great great great Aunt or Uncle who was sold into slavery in the distant past.

So, I might have an ancestor who was enslaved by the Romans in the distant past.

Would I not deserve Italian cash?

You're just cherry picking one bit of World history and social development and hoping to cash in on it.

Rather than doing reasonably well at school and getting a proper job. (Not you personally, I hasten to add. Hopefully you did/or will do reasonably well at school and will get/got a proper job)

As might do "Native Indians" (of course Native Indians were only native for as long as they were native) who previously colonised the Land masses of the Americas.

People moved East and people moved West and the world became colonised and recolonised.

So, perhaps everyone deserves a slice of the reparations pie.

-->@Double_R

You asked for the argument as to why abortion does not fall under the things we should prevent people from doing. The premise of that question is that we have the right to prevent people from doing things, and that we need a reason to keep abortion off of that list.

• Do we have a right to prevent people from murdering others? Just a yes/no
  

@TWS1405

There just are too, far too many fucking UGLY people in this world.

Is that why you guys wear the white sheets?

-->@TWS1405

I have to tell you, I very quickly lose interest when people sort of dodge questions. You may have observed this in the past, so, if it is the case where you just refuse to answer the question, I don't know what else to tell you about that. 

law is the absolute definitive demarcation establishing legally (juxtaposed socially, culturally and scientifically) when personhood is factually established. 

• Do you believe currently legal, is synonymous with moral, or something that ought to be the case? I wonder. 
  

• Like I said, I tend not to have any interest in these semantic disputes. I want to get to the precise root of the disagreement here. So, when I use the word "person," I use it in a way that is generally used philosophically: denoting whether an entity has moral consideration/the right to life and other fundamental rights. When you use the person, do you mean something else? 
  

If the fetus could survive outside the mother then one can reasonably argue that abortion is murder.

• Do you plan on answering the question, or do you just refuse to answer? I am fine with either, frankly. 
  

A potential human being (i.e., [a] person) not yet actualized (i.e., upon birth)

• Maybe we can go back to the 14th amendment argument. The argument seems to be 14th amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.," therefore personhood begins at birth.  Here are some problems with this: 
  

1. The first amendment does not say unborn are not persons, so to assume such is the negative inference fallacy. 
   

1. Even if I were to grant that the amendment says this, this would be an appeal to the law, and thus, is not a normative ethical argument. I am not interested in having a disconnect in how we are speaking to one another/in understanding. When I use the term "person," I am referring to a living thing that should have moral consideration and the right to life. 
   

So is there any of these two points you don't understand or have a problem with? 

-->@TWS1405

I’m so devastated that a former enlisted Army guy who is a terrible racist doesn’t share my values.

-->@TWS1405

Rather being boring than think like you

-->@Polytheist-Witch

These are not mutually exclusive. I can grant that the unborn is in the dependent on the mothers body, I just want the specific admission that it is an individual organism distinct from the mother. That is: the unborn and the mother are two different entities. 

-->@Polytheist-Witch

Okay, so you are just amending the proposition to people being allowed to do whatever they want to themselves.

-->@TWS1405

1. Abortion involves one person, the female, be it a girl or a woman who is [a] person. She has rights. The pregnancy does not have any rights, regardless of gestational stage.

I know where you are going with the nonsensical "form of rights to non-persons," and it is a both irrelevant and a red herring. 

• I want to press here a little, because I am not sure why you won't answer this question. Here is its relevance: you stated, that an unborn at any stage of pregnancy has no rights because it is a non-person. So, I am curious. If you also argue that an unborn person has no rights. I assume that is (a) because they are non persons or (b) some other reason.
  
• If a, this would commit your normative ethical view to asserting that no non-persons should have rights. 
  
• If b, I would like an argument as to what determines whether a non-person has rights or not. 
  

2. 14th Amendment.

• The 14th amendment does not seem to be an argument. It appears to necessitate using the negative inference fallacy as just because citizenship is given at birth, does not mean that unborns should not be given personhood. How about this, do you have a normative ethical argument for personhood beginning at birth? 
  

@TWS1405

Okay...so lets see if we can go through some of the propositions here.

• Prop 1: People have the ability to do anything that is logically possible with their body (includes rape/murder). 
  
• Prop 2: People should be prevented from doing some things with their body. 
  
• Would you say both of these propositions are true? If they are, my question becomes, what is the argument as to why abortion does not fall under the things we should prevent people from doing under prop 2. 
  

-->@TWS1405

Okay, this is good, because now we can keep responding to these demarcations.

1. Utterly irrelevant to this debate/discussion

• I do not see how this is the case. You seem to have said that the difference between the previous 2 propositions was that one involved the killing of persons and one did not. I want clarification as to whether your normative ethical framework gives any form of right to non-persons. 
  

2.  Birth

• Can you give the argument for that? 
  

IwantRooseveltagain,

What an idiot.

-->@Double_R

Well, people can use their body to do many things, such as committing rape, or jumping off a bridge etc. Anything logically possible. 

I am sure we can agree that people should be prevented from doing some things using their body, so I am just asking for the argument as to why abortion is not one of those things. It seems quite simple to me. 

>@TWS1405

Okay, so, let me ask you two questions. 

1. Do non-persons have rights and, 
   
2. What are the criteria of traits that make one a person? 
   

@ethang5

What are you even insinuating here? George Floyd was murdered in cold blood by a cop with three others as bystanders or abetting participants (this is going to become clearer throughout the case). Trump has had no such thing happen to him.