Political Crossfire Forums

[The Grandmaster]

Sailor Moon wrote: BTW, if it can die, it is a life.


So my finger is "a life" my kidney is "a being? :wink:

[anselfir]

what's your point? It is universally recognized taht abortion is talking about aborting something independent of the woman. This is not ocntroversial.

and sailor's comment on death/life is not wrong, it is just irrelevant, because it is circular.

[The Grandmaster]

oneofthem wrote: That is irrelevant. The relevant question is whether I have the unilateral burden to assess the identity of the child. This cannot stand, as you must have a superior position, which you do not.

You’re saying whether it is a life or not is irrelevant? Goodness oneofthem, what a claim to make! Were this true, everyone could be imprisoned for no reason, for infringing upon the rights of those things that “are not lives!” If we are to say abortion is wrong it must be so for some reason. You telling me figuring if that which is inside is a life or not is not relevant. Impressive.

oneofthem wrote: For your information, the concept of burden of proof is a legal one, and has no place in ethics. I find your crossing of completely unrelated arguments annoying, please stop.

And you’re saying whether it is a life or not is irrelevant? Goodness oneofthem, what a claim to make! Were this true, everyone could be imprisoned for no reason, for infringing upon the rights of those things that “are not lives!” If we are to say abortion is wrong it must be so for some reason. You telling me figuring if that which is inside is a life or not is not relevant? You really want to claim we can arbitrarily take away rights from people?

[anselfir]

Not relevant ot this particular argument. :roll: What should i do with you if you don't understand this? Check your own arguments.

[The Grandmaster]

oneofthem wrote: Not relevant ot this particular argument. :roll: What should i do with you if you don't understand this? Check your own arguments.

So then you are claiming we can arbitrarily take away rights from people on a whim! If that is the conclusion you want to have your premises entail, be my guest! I am happy leaving a man with nothing more than the ability to claim we can arbitrarily eliminate rights. :lol: The question is…what should you do with yourself?!

[anselfir]

dude like zomg wtf, stop with yoru tangents and address the dependency question. Does your assumed position depend on the identity of the fetus, and thus its rights?

The actual rights is of course irrelevant in an argument that does not involve the actual rights. Like You should be able to comprehend that right? WTF?


Stop **** or I'll leave you alone to play with yourself.

[The Grandmaster]

oneofthem wrote: dude like zomg wtf, stop with yoru tangents and address the dependency question. Does your assumed position depend on the identity of the fetus, and thus its rights?

The actual rights is of course irrelevant in an argument that does not involve the actual rights. Like You should be able to comprehend that right? WTF?


Stop **** or I'll leave you alone to play with yourself.

My position is as it always was. If you’re going to take rights away from a person, you need to give a good reason for doing so, and merely saying there is a life inside without the demonstration that there is isn’t reason enough. I don’t know where you claimed this argument is not about actual rights, but if were suddenly forced to use your body against your will, I believe you’d be saying your “actual” rights were being violated in a heartbeat. The women has actual rights is something you’ve never disputed.

The only time dependence enters into he question is if ones rights are to be compromised, it is dependant on the existence of another being that can have sovereignty over her existing rights

[Sailor Moon]

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: oneofthem wrote: dude like zomg wtf, stop with yoru tangents and address the dependency question. Does your assumed position depend on the identity of the fetus, and thus its rights?

The actual rights is of course irrelevant in an argument that does not involve the actual rights. Like You should be able to comprehend that right? WTF?


Stop **** or I'll leave you alone to play with yourself.

My position is as it always was. If you’re going to take rights away from a person, you need to give a good reason for doing so, and merely saying there is a life inside without the demonstration that there is isn’t reason enough. I don’t know where you claimed this argument is not about actual rights, but if were suddenly forced to use your body against your will, I believe you’d be saying your “actual” rights were being violated in a heartbeat. The women has actual rights is something you’ve never disputed.

The only time dependence enters into he question is if ones rights are to be compromised, it is dependant on the existence of another being that can have sovereignty over her existing rights

Sovereignety OVER a life??? :shock: :roll: :shock: :roll:

You used the argument in the past that a fetus is a parasite, TGM1... now, are you really honestly going to sit here and dispute that this "parasite" is a life, or are you going to face the f***ing truth?

TGM1-

Examples of your circular arguments:

A fetus is alive, but it is not a life.

It is a being, but it is not a life.

A fetus is an entity, but not a life.

A fetus is not alive, either, so its not a life.

A beating heart does not make it alive.

Being alive does not grant someone a life.

A fetus is a parasite, but not a life.

Life does not begin before twinning occurs.

A fetus is not a life, although it is a blob of living tissue.

A fetus is just a byproduct of fun, therefore it is not alive.

46 Human chromosomes does not make a fetus a human life.

It is not a life, therefore the woman has the right to kill it.

:roll: :shock: :roll: :shock: :roll: :shock:

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Circles!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The thing about a circle is, it never ends. It just goes on and on my friend.. It goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on ...

And it keeps on going on.

[The Grandmaster]

Holy sh1t are you drunk or something?? :shock: :lol:
No seriously. :-|
Go through my posts, all 560 of them on abortion, and find where I said any one of the things you typed out. Other than the one where it is not a life, which up to a point, I maintain. Please. I want you to. I have made not one claim you have typed. Again, your need to simply make things up to attack demonstrates the desperation of your position. :lol:

And as far as circular argument, you've learned something new, and as usual, use it every time you post whether you know what it means or not.

If you wonder why I keep coming back here, it should be obvious. I find your posts so amusing.

[Sailor Moon]

TFF! I had to respond to your earlier bashing of me, calling me obsessed, while you self proclaim yourself to be unrivaled in debate...

Esp. Since youre "debating wisdom" applies mainly to the Lounge, with a "grandmaster" total of 1087 posts in there.

TPBM TPAM.... whatta marvelous champion you must BE!

OK you asked for examples, you got em:



Quote: Quote: What makes a human being a human being?


Quote: Gilbert1908 wrote:

Scientifically there is only one event at which we KNOW that human life comes into existence.

TheGrandmaster1 wrote:

No there isn't Gilbert. We've been over this in all seriousness at least 25 times and you know it. Your dogmatic unwillingness to accept it notwithstanding, there is not A point in which we KNOW that a human life comes into existence. You know we've been over this. You even admitted the possibility of another point as well.

Quote: Without an egg and sperm, there simply are no other points of development to debate are there?

Quote: To say conception is the beginning because conception is the beginning is, as I said in the other thread, circular. It must be the beginning because of some reason, and that reason being without it, no development could happen is not enough, because the same could be said of any point in a continuum that is necessary for a human to exist.

Quote: Cancer is alive, and of course Cancer is human, therefore cancer is a human life.
Quote:
Because something has human DNA, thus being "human" and is not dead, thus "alive" does not entail it is "a human life." Cancer, moles and tumors would be "human lives" by this criterion if it were all that was required.

Quote: It's your side that says "if something is alive, and something has human DNA, something is a human being."

Quote: Is cancer's DNA that of a chicken? A moose? No. It's human DNA. So by the pro-life argument, it would be a human being.

Quote: They claim to want to protect a life where there does not exist one

Quote: there is not A point in which we KNOW that a human life comes into existence

Quote: The important differentiation isn’t between a life and a living thing, it is between “life’ and “a life.”

Quote: I agree, the statement “this embryo is a life” is false, before twinning occurs.

Quote: Often, they attempt to force us to accept life and a life as synonymous, which simply is not the case. What is inside, while it may be life, has yet to be determined up until a point to definitively be “a life.”

Quote: To a point, it is not a life at all, much less ones with rights. It is a collection of cells with human DNA,

Quote: it contains both the possibility of being a single being, or multiple beings by virtue of potentiality

Quote: the assumption that it is a single life is contradictory with the equally possible fact that it is potentially multiple beings, as you, I, and Master all said, it creates great difficulties with the claim “a human life begins at conception.”

Quote: Second, even were it to be determined to be a human life, your claim it deserved ever right Steen has is also arguable, since Steen, by virtue along of his very existence, is not in direct conflict of any of the natural rights of others, whereas this is not the case when the embryo or fetus is in question.

Quote: While we of course must take the rights of the child into consideration, this comes into play after the thing has become a child at all, which up until past the point in which it is human cellular matter, this is not the case.

Quote: And I don't believe sex based on intentions one way or the other Have an effect on the science of whether that which is inside is a human life or not, or give it the right to live inside of her body where as before it did not have this right.

Quote: As it is you that is advocating the elimination of certain rights to the autonomy of a person’s body, and what resides within it, it is you that must provide justification to warrant such undermining of autonomy. Thus, the Pro-choicers do not have to prove that which is inside is a person, (though often we do take this course of action) it is you who must demonstrate that which is inside is in fact, a person.

Quote: not have a bearing on whether or not that which is inside is a human being, or person, with rights. ......Supposing the thing inside is not a person.....

Quote: I maintain it isn’t demonstrated that to a point that someone is hurt. I also maintain that even if it was, it yet still remains undemonstrated that there is such a thing as a “right to live inside of another.”

Quote: Note that I have never argued for abortion later than approximately the first trimester, when virtually of all science agrees it is a human being.

Quote: And as a rigorous definition of a person does not exist, I can’t believe we would be warranted in robbing a person who we know does exist of rights and autonomy by virtue of something that isn’t even defined.

Quote: Though I would not be opposed to allowing abortion during the full term, allowing her only the first trimester is also acceptable to me, as it seems reasonable anyone would have enough time to make a decision within this frame.

Quote: the analogy is always flawed in that it is comparing what is scientifically understood to be human beings (Negros and Jews) with what is by no means decided by law, science, or philosophy to be human beings (embryos)...... apparently, we are all discriminating bigots, for advocating tumor, mole, and cancer treatment.

Quote: I could very well, for some reason or another, want to chop my finger off. If I so desired this, I should be able to do this, having autonomy over my body, whether it is living tissue or not.

Quote: It isn’t a matter of when something should be destroyed.

Quote: the reasons for her choosing to have an abortion remain irrelevant.

Quote: Are you saying my finger is "a being" with rights?

If anything, you are only hurting your own argument, by showing how important it is for a person to have control over what happens to or inside of their own body.

Quote: People have no qualms about killing embryos,

Quote: Potential and Actual, by virtue of their definitions, are not synonymous.

Quote: reasonable that for a women who does not want a child, to bear one could very well indeed be a punishment more terrible than anything she could experience. There is the 9 month bearing

Quote: That explains why moral rules and principles do not apply to lower animals any more than they apply to avalanches that kill people A requisite for being a moral agent, but not necessarily a sufficient condition of one, is a brain. In the absence of this, one cannot be a moral agent, and no longer is worthy of rights

Quote: Errors, mutations, and many other factors result in millions of cells is different DNA, so the claim that each cell carries the same DNA is not correct. And in fact, they do have separate bodily systems my good friend. Cells are in fact, individual lives in themselves, containing even a digestive tract, skin, and a separate brain, something in fact, that can’t even be said for the fetus at a certain point



Ok I am sure that I have illustrated the point well enough now. If you need more examples, just let me know. <YAWN>

:lol: <giggles> OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

And that was a whole lot of contradictions and circles, now wasnt it.

[The Grandmaster]

:lol: No, none of those are circular arguments, like you claim. I did not use one premise that assumed the very thing I was atttempting to prove. You just wasted all that time gathering those for nothing. :lol: Anway, learn what a ciricular argument, also called petitio principii, is and then we'll talk.

And hell yeah I have lots of posts in the lounge, are you kidding? That place is fun, and I like a little time to wind down after some nice skill sharpening debate. :wink:

[anselfir]

Quote: My position is as it always was. If you’re going to take rights away from a person, you need to give a good reason for doing so, and merely saying there is a life inside without the demonstration that there is isn’t reason enough. I don’t know where you claimed this argument is not about actual rights, but if were suddenly forced to use your body against your will, I believe you’d be saying your “actual” rights were being violated in a heartbeat. The women has actual rights is something you’ve never disputed.

The only time dependence enters into he question is if ones rights are to be compromised, it is dependant on the existence of another being that can have sovereignty over her existing rights
Explain why your wimmin's right is not dependent on the identity of the object *hint hint you know which one. Liek the evaluation of anyone's proper rihts can be without reference to others. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: LIKE ZOMG!!!WTF Get it now?

IT"S NOT A f***ing COURTCASE. Thus I could easily say you are trying to take away teh rights of the child, and of ocurse vice versa. Get it? Simply saying this be the status quo nd it is superior doesn't cut it. Do you even know what ethics mean? ??????

[anselfir]

:rotf: skill sharpening debate. go think. actually, forget it. You are hopeless.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Sailor Moon wrote: Here we go again..

"What gives you the right to kill a fetus?"

Please pardon me for jumping back to this after two more pages.

I think this is the problem; you're starting in the wrong place.

You're assuming that killing a fetus is wrong, and then demanding justification for having the right to do so.

I think the question we need to ask first is: "What makes killing a fetus wrong?"

The problem that we have in this argument is that all of the arguments applied to proving that killing a fetus is wrong are inconsistent; they can be applied equally to killings that the people making the argument have no moral objections to. It isn't that I disagree with the arguments themselves-- though I usually do-- it's that the people making the arguments only apply them to fetuses, and ignore them when applied to other killing.

On the other side of the issue, it seems like most pro-choice advocates either agree that abortion is wrong-- but must be tolerated-- or try to prove that it isn't wrong by drawing a false biological distinction between fetuses and infants. This is equally inconsistent, in its own way, and does not contribute to a useful discussion of the morality of abortion.

[Sailor Moon]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Here we go again..

"What gives you the right to kill a fetus?"

Please pardon me for jumping back to this after two more pages.

I think this is the problem; you're starting in the wrong place.

You're assuming that killing a fetus is wrong, and then demanding justification for having the right to do so.

I think the question we need to ask first is: "What makes killing a fetus wrong?"

The problem that we have in this argument is that all of the arguments applied to proving that killing a fetus is wrong are inconsistent; they can be applied equally to killings that the people making the argument have no moral objections to. It isn't that I disagree with the arguments themselves-- though I usually do-- it's that the people making the arguments only apply them to fetuses, and ignore them when applied to other killing.

On the other side of the issue, it seems like most pro-choice advocates either agree that abortion is wrong-- but must be tolerated-- or try to prove that it isn't wrong by drawing a false biological distinction between fetuses and infants. This is equally inconsistent, in its own way, and does not contribute to a useful discussion of the morality of abortion.

Korimyr, I already explained the difference between ethics and morality.

What makes something wrong (immoral) is its ethical implicatons on a species.

Tell me.. how does removing 40,000,000+ humans from the human gene pool benefit the human race?

And if you need proof that a fetus is human, just ask any Forenics lab what species you might find if you test the DNA of a fetus.

You really oughta skim through the thread, before posting this, as I do not wish to repeat the previous posts.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Sailor Moon wrote: Korimyr, I already explained the difference between ethics and morality.

Yes, but I don't care about semantics. If the answer is anywhere near as clear-cut and obvious as you claim it is, you should be capable of explaining it in a logically consistent fashion.

Sailor Moon wrote: Tell me.. how does removing 40,000,000+ humans from the human gene pool benefit the human race?

When those forty-million-plus humans are not yet contributing to society, and there are over six billion humans on the planet, what harm does it do to remove them?

If you can't demonstrate harm, you can't justify the expense of enforcing laws against it. Hell, you can't justify the loss of medical professionals caused by having to revoke the licenses of those that perform illegal abortions.

Sailor Moon wrote: And if you need proof that a fetus is human, just ask any Forenics lab what species you might find if you test the DNA of a fetus.

It's early, so I'll forgive you for overlooking the fact that I was complaining about the illogic of pro-choice arguments in my last paragraph.

[Selfish_Meme]

Sailor Moon wrote:
Korimyr, I already explained the difference between ethics and morality.

What makes something wrong (immoral) is its ethical implicatons on a species.

Tell me.. how does removing 40,000,000+ humans from the human gene pool benefit the human race?

And if you need proof that a fetus is human, just ask any Forenics lab what species you might find if you test the DNA of a fetus.

You really oughta skim through the thread, before posting this, as I do not wish to repeat the previous posts.
40,000,000 less mouths to feed, clothe, pay, support, treat medically, litigate with and eventually bury. There are plenty enough people being born at the moment that we can't feed, clothe, pay, support, treat medically, litigate with and eventually bury them all. So there are your ethical considerations.

[Sailor Moon]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Sailor Moon wrote:
Korimyr, I already explained the difference between ethics and morality.

What makes something wrong (immoral) is its ethical implicatons on a species.

Tell me.. how does removing 40,000,000+ humans from the human gene pool benefit the human race?

And if you need proof that a fetus is human, just ask any Forenics lab what species you might find if you test the DNA of a fetus.

You really oughta skim through the thread, before posting this, as I do not wish to repeat the previous posts.
40,000,000 less mouths to feed, clothe, pay, support, treat medically, litigate with and eventually bury. There are plenty enough people being born at the moment that we can't feed, clothe, pay, support, treat medically, litigate with and eventually bury them all. So there are your ethical considerations.

40,000,000 less people working. 40,000,000 less people becoming doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, future politicians..

stipulate all you want, but stipulations are not allowed in the supreme court. Theyre moot.

[Selfish_Meme]

Sailor Moon wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Sailor Moon wrote:
Korimyr, I already explained the difference between ethics and morality.

What makes something wrong (immoral) is its ethical implicatons on a species.

Tell me.. how does removing 40,000,000+ humans from the human gene pool benefit the human race?

And if you need proof that a fetus is human, just ask any Forenics lab what species you might find if you test the DNA of a fetus.

You really oughta skim through the thread, before posting this, as I do not wish to repeat the previous posts.
40,000,000 less mouths to feed, clothe, pay, support, treat medically, litigate with and eventually bury. There are plenty enough people being born at the moment that we can't feed, clothe, pay, support, treat medically, litigate with and eventually bury them all. So there are your ethical considerations.

40,000,000 less people working. 40,000,000 less people becoming doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, future politicians..

stipulate all you want, but stipulations are not allowed in the supreme court. Theyre moot.
I'm not sure you know what the word means. You put your reasons forward I put mine, thats not stipulation. Stipulation is a condition of a contract.

[Sailor Moon]

Dude, speculate. Whatever. You get it. :!oops:

Speculation is moot.