Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[jamil]

I've "walked through" my argument enough. Either you're going to accept that what I say is my argument, is actually my argument, or you aren't.

No. I don't accept it.

"The default state is that all humans are created equal and are endowed with certain, unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why would that living human being not have the right to life that is inherent and unalienable?"

This distills to the syllogism I said. No one refutes that a zygote is both living, and human. You must go beyond science to claim that human being has an inherent and unalienable right.

Of course you later said,
"B. The scientific argument is that the two-celled zygote meets the scientific criteria for being both living and human. Science doesn't address the matter of inherent/natural rights; that would be the realm of philosophy. You are using philosophy, rather than science, to limit/refute the scientific argument."

Yes. I am using philosphy to apply the same science you did but to a different conclusion. You claim your position that the zygote does have rights, which is essentially both an "at conception" argument, an argument that follows the form of the syllogism I offered.

But, also your "B." statement seems to be inconsistent with your constitution rights argument you made just above that. You first argue that you're making a scientific argument that a zygote has an inherent right to life based on science. I think for you to be consistent, you can't have it both ways. By your own admission, your conclusion that a zygote has constitutional rights, is philosophical, not scientific. It's there in black and white. And it IS an argument you made. And subsequent posts of yours confirm that.

 

[bwframe]

I don't think the dems are interested in pursuing the leak source as they already know who, they probably bought the info for it's political value. Some investigate journalist should.... follow the money... to see where it went.

Maybe Tucker Carlson will?


.

 

[jamil]

Morals developed before the rights, or before the recognition/concept of rights? IMO there is a distinct difference. I can agree with you that morals developed before the recognition of rights, but I can't agree that morals drove the existence of rights.

I don't know how you argue there are rights without a moral framework, unless you say they're derived from a deity. In which case you can argue whatever you want. But if there are no deities, are there even rights? I think with a moral framework, yes.

I could argue that squirrels have the right to life and that their instincts are to protect that right. And yep to enjoy a batch of fried squirrel I'll have to deny that squirrels right to life. My morals will allow for that, for others maybe not.

I can agree with this.

I think the evolutionary purpose of morals is natural selection. I think humans have developed compassion. And I think that makes some people more sensitive to lower species. I don't think that trait would necessarily select out that behavior. Rights collide. An individual's right to life, to him or her, supersedes another. We all want to pass on our traits. So kill and eat I guess. Some people choose to override that because we have grocery stores.

 

[chipbennett]

No. I don't accept it.

"The default state is that all humans are created equal and are endowed with certain, unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why would that living human being not have the right to life that is inherent and unalienable?"

This distills to the syllogism I said.

This is the very definition of a straw man argument. I'm telling you what my argument is, and you're insisting that my argument is a syllogism that you distilled from something that I said.

No one refutes that a zygote is both living, and human. You must go beyond science to claim that human being has an inherent and unalienable right.

Which is why I went to great pains to ensure that we both accepted/agreed upon "humans have a right to life" as an applicable premise for this discussion. I never claimed that the premise was scientific; only that it was a universal principle.

Of course you later said,
"B. The scientific argument is that the two-celled zygote meets the scientific criteria for being both living and human. Science doesn't address the matter of inherent/natural rights; that would be the realm of philosophy. You are using philosophy, rather than science, to limit/refute the scientific argument."

Yes. I am using philosphy to apply the same science you did but to a different conclusion. You claim your position that the zygote does have rights, which is essentially both an "at conception" argument, an argument that follows the form of the syllogism I offered.

Nope; that - still, yet, again, ad nauseum - is not what I have argued. I never claimed that the zygote has rights. I said that, scientifically, we cannot know the point in human development at which rights attach. Your straw man is diametrically opposed to what I have actually argued.

But, also your "B." statement seems to be inconsistent with your constitution rights argument you made just above that. You first argue that you're making a scientific argument that a zygote has an inherent right to life based on science.

Nope; that - still, yet, again, ad nauseum - is not what I have argued. I never claimed that the zygote has rights. I said that, scientifically, we cannot know the point in human development at which rights attach. Your straw man is diametrically opposed to what I have actually argued.

I think for you to be consistent, you can't have it both ways. By your own admission, your conclusion that a zygote has constitutional rights...

Nope; that - still, yet, again, ad nauseum - is not what I have argued. I never claimed that the zygote has rights. I said that, scientifically, we cannot know the point in human development at which rights attach. Your straw man is diametrically opposed to what I have actually argued.

...is philosophical, not scientific. It's there in black and white. And it IS an argument you made. And subsequent posts of yours confirm that.

Nope; that - still, yet, again, ad nauseum - is not what I have argued. I never claimed that the zygote has rights. I said that, scientifically, we cannot know the point in human development at which rights attach. Your straw man is diametrically opposed to what I have actually argued.

I must insist, if you truly have any intent of sincere debate, that you stop ascribing to me an argument that I have not made, and instead to address in good faith the argument that I have actually made.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I don't know how you argue there are rights without a moral framework, unless you say they're derived from a deity. In which case you can argue whatever you want. But if there are no deities, are there even rights? I think with a moral framework, yes.

My beliefs are along the lines that rights flow from God. But that is not the argument I'm making. You can call them natural or inherent rights. You stated up thread(paraphrasing) that people have the right not to be taken into slavery, and that slaves had that right, but the morals of the time didn't recognize those rights. So you either agree that rights can exist without the moral framework, or you believe that slaves didn't have that right.

I think the evolutionary purpose of morals is natural selection. I think humans have developed compassion. And I think that makes some people more sensitive to lower species. I don't think that trait would necessarily select out that behavior. Rights collide. An individual's right to life, to him or her, supersedes another. We all want to pass on our traits. So kill and eat I guess. Some people choose to override that because we have grocery stores.

I could pretty much agree with this as written. But I have a question, does one individuals right to life supersede another in the absence of action by the other? So ruling out self defense and such. We're both starving, but you have a sandwich. Does my right to life supersede yours? Not my or your opinion of whose rights supersede, but the actual right.

Or to put it another way, does the eagle's right to life supersede the squirrel's? Subjectively I'd say it depends on which one you asked. Objectively, I'd say no.

And I wouldn't say that grocery stores override that, the person is just having someone else do the deed. And for the record I don't hunt. Although I wouldn't mind starting.

 

[jamil]

This is the very definition of a straw man argument. I'm telling you what my argument is, and you're insisting that my argument is a syllogism that you distilled from something that I said.

The good faith interpretation of what I'm saying would be a charitable one in which you look for reasons I might have for not reconciling all the things you've said, as what you've claimed. It's not a strawman. It's not a strawman to not see a logical way to reconcile all that.

Which is why I went to great pains to ensure that we both accepted/agreed upon "humans have a right to life" as an applicable premise for this discussion. I never claimed that the premise was scientific; only that it was a universal principle.

I think you could have done much better. What I think you're trying to say now, which I still find it hard to interpret that way, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and infer from your insistence it's not the argument it sounds like.

You used the DoI to establish a mutual agreement that people have inherent rights. And you used the "zygote" to establish a mutual agreement that biologically, the unborn is a human being even at the earliest stages. And then from those two premises, you're not making a scientific conclusion that a zygote has rights, you're making the philosophical conclusion that a zygote has rights. Is that what you're trying to argue?

I mean, if it is, it is. But if it is, you did not have to make it more difficult for me to interpret your way as apposed to the way I did. There are a lot of words in that post and surrounding posts that makes it feel to me like what you seem to be saying is a retcon. And someone else obviously would have had to interpret what you're saying too. Others piled on as if to say, ya, it's the science, dude. Go back and reread some of your earlier arguments and then tell me honestly I shouldn't be skeptical of what you're saying vs what you seemed to say then. It looked to me like you were trying to have it both ways.

Nope; that - still, yet, again, ad nauseum - is not what I have argued. I never claimed that the zygote has rights. I said that, scientifically, we cannot know the point in human development at which rights attach. Your straw man is diametrically opposed to what I have actually argued.

Because you said "The default state is that all humans are created equal and are endowed with certain, unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why would that living human being not have the right to life that is inherent and unalienable?" Why is the most natural interpretation of that not that you're claiming it has rights? That absolutely reads like you're making that claim. You got your high-fives for making that claim. You had already established that a zygote is human. You had to have been referring to that. Why should I not interpret that the way I did?

Like I said. I guess I can give you the benefit of doubt. But surely you can see why I have a problem believing you did not make the argument I thought you did. And claiming that I'm making a strawman argument I think is not in good faith when there are simpler, more reliable, more logical, assumptions to make.

[removing the ad nauseum as irrelevant dismissal of points]


I must insist, if you truly have any intent of sincere debate, that you stop ascribing to me an argument that I have not made, and instead to address in good faith the argument that I have actually made.

I'm trying to address what look to me like inconsistencies. And, if you really intended to say that your conclusion was not "scientific" but was philosophical, then we're done with that part of the argument. We're in agreement. This is something I've argued from the start, that this is subjective. Okay. So you are saying that your conclusion is NOT based on science, but is based on philosophy. I'm good with that. So if we're agreed, in good faith, I'll just let what I see as inconsistencies go, and accept what you're saying at face value.

Now address the other part. The part about you not making an "at conception" argument. Hell. I'll even say for the sake of argument that you haven't made that argument anywhere in this thread. Clean slate. I won't hold you to any of your prior posts.

So I am now in agreement that no posts exist where you made a secular argument that rights should confer at conception. But that is the challenge you have to make or not make. Either you can refute my position or you can't, or won't. Which is it? But, to argue against my position, you actually have to argue the point you say you didn't make. You have to argue in favor of "at conception" from a secular viewpoint.

 

[jamil]

My beliefs are along the lines that rights flow from God. But that is not the argument I'm making. You can call them natural or inherent rights. You stated up thread(paraphrasing) that people have the right not to be taken into slavery, and that slaves had that right, but the morals of the time didn't recognize those rights. So you either agree that rights can exist without the moral framework, or you believe that slaves didn't have that right.

I don't think that's true. First, as I had said in a prior post, I don't think slavery is the right mechanism to make the point you're making. It's not that they lacked the moral maturity. The idea of human rights was already available to them. Forwhatever reason, they chose to think of Black people as less than human, and therefore not deserving of human rights. Was thinking of them as less than human the immoral part? Well, I kinda think they used that as an excuse, because in their conscience, they probably were more eager to believe the people they treated cruelly were not human. So no, the immoral part is treating them cruelly.

Second, I think we could still make your point with a different society. A society that enslaved people who looked like them, who they believed were human, but still enslaved them, and still treated them immorally. We don't have to go back too far in history for that. There were many. Let's say this society predated rights, and predated the concept of morality.

So how did the first person reason that, hey, that guy has rights! He shouldn't be held against his will? Let's say that smart guy is you. What would make the thought come to mind if there wasn't already some kind of moral thinking about how that person is treated, vs how you're treated, being an observer, or maybe even a slave owner yourself?

Why think rights first? I think it would be more like, hey, that guy is obviously suffering. That makes me feel kinda ****ty. I don't like feeling that way. Maybe I shouldn't treat him like ****. And of course I think that process might take more than one guy suddenly having this idea. But I think it would eventually lead to an idea of fairness. And then that would give way to, hey, we're all humans. It's not right to treat other people this way. No one should treat people like that. It's not right I've never looked up the entomology of the word "rights" but it seems fitting that a collection of right-doing acts towards each other as opposed to wrongs, we might call that concept "rights".

So we would to have the concept of right and wrong, before we decide what is a group of behaviors that we attach this collection of right-doing? It seems to me a most natural way that the idea of rights would form. I don't think you can have rights without first having the concept of right and wrong, which is the basis of morality.

I could pretty much agree with this as written. But I have a question, does one individuals right to life supersede another in the absence of action by the other? So ruling out self defense and such. We're both starving, but you have a sandwich. Does my right to life supersede yours? Not my or your opinion of whose rights supersede, but the actual right.

Or to put it another way, does the eagle's right to life supersede the squirrel's? Subjectively I'd say it depends on which one you asked. Objectively, I'd say no.

And I wouldn't say that grocery stores override that, the person is just having someone else do the deed. And for the record I don't hunt. Although I wouldn't mind starting.

I think "rights" as a collection of "right-doing" actions, is a human concept. But because we have compassion, we extend compassion to lower animals. So then we think it's more moral to kill for a practical and necessary purpose. Rather than just for the sake of killing something. Except raccoons. It's always okay to kill raccoons. Those pesky things suck. And they **** on things you'd rather they not **** on. Starlings suck too. But I already made my starling joke for the day.

Anyway, I think two humans caught in that situation have a right to survive, but I do think it's immoral to kill an innocent person just so you can survive. That's definitely an instinct. It's one I would choose to die overriding. But I also think that might be a subjective moral. I'm not sure I'm morally mature enough to think out a rational case for it being an objective moral.

 

[chipbennett]

The good faith interpretation of what I'm saying would be that what you said makes no sense to me given the structure or arguments you made. It's not a strawman. Claiming I'm making a strawman argument is not the same thing as me not seeing your argument as any other thing but the one I've said you made. So maybe chil out a bit on the assumptions.


I think you could have done much better. What I think you're trying to say now, which I still find it hard to interpret that way, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and infer from your insistence it's not the argument it sounds like.

You used the DoI to establish a mutual agreement that people have inherent rights. And you used the "zygote" to establish a mutual agreement that biologically, the unborn is a human being even at the earliest stages. And then from those two premises, you're not making a scientific conclusion that a zygote has rights, you're making the philosophical conclusion that a zygote has rights. Is that what you're trying to argue?

I mean, if it is, it is. But then there are a lot of words in that post and surrounding posts that makes it feel like this is a retcon. And someone else thought you were making a "science" argument too. Others piled on as if to say, ya, it's the science, dude. Go back and reread some of your earlier arguments and then tell me I shouldn't be skeptical of what you're now saying vs what you seemed to say then. It looked to me like you were trying to have it both ways.



Because you said "The default state is that all humans are created equal and are endowed with certain, unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why would that living human being not have the right to life that is inherent and unalienable?" Why is the most natural interpretation of that not that you're claiming it has rights? You had already established that a zygote is human. You had to have been referring to that.

Like I said. I guess I can give you the benefit of doubt. But surely you can see why I have a problem believing you did not make the argument I thought you did. And claiming that I'm making a strawman argument I think is not in good faith when there are simpler, more reliable, more logical, assumptions to make.


I'm trying to address what look to me like inconsistencies. And, if you really intended to say that your conclusion was not "scientific" but was philosophical, then we're done with that part of the argument. We're in agreement. That conclusion is NOT based on science, but is based on philosophy. So if we're in agreement on that, I'll just let what I see as inconsistencies go, and accept what you're saying.

We're in agreement on that. Because science can't tell us the point in human development at which rights attach, then we must turn to some other means. Let's call that alternative philosophy.

We are stuck with a scientific uncertainty. We have a living human at a two-celled zygote stage of development. We don't know, scientifically, if rights have yet attached to that living human. We could make an assumption, but whatever assumption we make could be right or it could be wrong.

If we assume rights attach at the two-cell zygote stage, and we're right, then we rightly protect that living human's right to life. But if we're wrong, at worst, we extend recognition of those rights through some part of development at which they have not yet attached.

Now, let's say we assume that rights attach at some, later stage of development. That could be "heartbeat", or "feels pain", or "brainwave", or "ex utero viability", or whatever. For the purposes of this discussion, that stage is arbitrary. The point is that it is somewhere down the path of the developmental cycle. If we make that assumption, and we're right, then we rightly protect that living human's right to life from that stage of development, and don't deny not-yet-attached rights prior to that stage of development. But, if we're wrong, then we introduce some range of development during which that living human has the right to life, but that right is not recognized/protected - and therefore we risk unjustly denying that right by taking that human's life.

Up to now, this should all be black-and-white, straight-forward, and non-controversial, I think/hope?

But now, we have to make a decision - a risk-based decision: where do we draw the line regarding risking the unjust taking of a human life?

I contend that it can be entirely consistent with secular reasoning to take a least-risk view, and choose to recognize the right to life as early in the developmental process as possible. (It could also be entirely consistent with secular reasoning to rationalize some other degree of risk, by choosing to recognize the right to life at some other, later stage of development.)

While people may disagree on the decision, the consequences of that decision should not be in dispute.

Now address the other part. The part about you not making an "at conception" argument. Hell. I'll even say for the sake of argument that you haven't made that argument anywhere in this thread. Clean slate. I won't hold you to any of your prior posts.

So I am now in agreement that no posts exist where you made a secular argument that rights should confer at conception. But that is the challenge you have to make or not make. Either you can refute my position or you can't, or won't. Which is it? But, to argue against my position, you actually have to argue the point you say you didn't make. You have to argue in favor of "at conception" from a secular viewpoint.

I think we're finally getting somewhere productive. In terms of a secular argument (because, in this thread, I'm not arguing my personal, religious beliefs or from a religious perspective), I am choosing not to address "at conception". If you say that there is no secular argument that can be made for an "at conception" attachment of rights, I'm not attempting to refute that assertion.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I don't think that's true. First, as I had said in a prior post, I don't think slavery is the right mechanism to make the point you're making. It's not that they lacked the moral maturity. The idea of human rights was already available to them. Forwhatever reason, they chose to think of Black people as less than human, and therefore not deserving of human rights. Was thinking of them as less than human the immoral part? Well, I kinda think they used that as an excuse, because in their conscience, they probably were more eager to believe the people they treated cruelly were not human. So no, the immoral part is treating them cruelly.

Second, I think we could still make your point with a different society. A society that enslaved people who looked like them, who they believed were human, but still enslaved them, and still treated them immorally. We don't have to go back too far in history for that. There were many. Let's say this society predated rights, and predated the concept of morality.

So how did the first person reason that, hey, that guy has rights! He shouldn't be held against his will? Let's say that smart guy is you. What would make the thought come to mind if there wasn't already some kind of moral thinking about how that person is treated, vs how you're treated, being an observer, or maybe even a slave owner yourself?

Why think rights first? I think it would be more like, hey, that guy is obviously suffering. That makes me feel kinda ****ty. I don't like feeling that way. Maybe I shouldn't treat him like ****. And of course I think that process might take more than one guy suddenly having this idea. But I think it would eventually lead to an idea of fairness. And then that would give way to, hey, we're all humans. It's not right to treat other people this way. No one should treat people like that. It's not right I've never looked up the entomology of the word "rights" but it seems fitting that a collection of right-doing acts towards each other as opposed to wrongs, we might call that concept "rights".

I didn't mention black slaves in the Americas for a reason. I just used slavery and as you have acknowledge it happened among people that looked the same.
You are IMO arguing that the recognition of rights stem from morality, I could agree with that.

But IMO the right exists even in the absence of that morality, so that society didn't predate rights but it may have predated the recognition of them.

So we would to have the concept of right and wrong, before we decide what is a group of behaviors that we attach this collection of right-doing? It seems to me a most natural way that the idea of rights would form. I don't think you can have rights without first having the concept of right and wrong, which is the basis of morality.

Again, that would be the recognition of said right. Not the existence of the right.

I think "rights" as a collection of "right-doing" actions, is a human concept. But because we have compassion, we extend compassion to lower animals. So then we think it's more moral to kill for a practical and necessary purpose. Rather than just for the sake of killing something. Except raccoons. It's always okay to kill raccoons. Those pesky things suck. And they **** on things you'd rather they not **** on. Starlings suck too. But I already made my starling joke for the day.

Anyway, I think two humans caught in that situation have a right to survive, but I do think it's immoral to kill an innocent person just so you can survive. That's definitely an instinct. It's one I would choose to die overriding. But I also think that might be a subjective moral. I'm not sure I'm morally mature enough to think out a rational case for it being an objective moral.

Again does that squirrel have the right to life? Regardless if we feel it is moral to take that life or not, or if that squirrel has morals. In my opinion yes, it is a natural and inherent right.

And you better not let Jedi hear you say that about raccoons, everyone knows that they are his best friends.

 

[jamil]

We're in agreement on that. Because science can't tell us the point in human development at which rights attach, then we must turn to some other means. Let's call that alternative philosophy.

We are stuck with a scientific uncertainty. We have a living human at a two-celled zygote stage of development. We don't know, scientifically, if rights have yet attached to that living human. We could make an assumption, but whatever assumption we make could be right or it could be wrong.

If we assume rights attach at the two-cell zygote stage, and we're right, then we rightly protect that living human's right to life. But if we're wrong, at worst, we extend recognition of those rights through some part of development at which they have not yet attached.

Now, let's say we assume that rights attach at some, later stage of development. That could be "heartbeat", or "feels pain", or "brainwave", or "ex utero viability", or whatever. For the purposes of this discussion, that stage is arbitrary. The point is that it is somewhere down the path of the developmental cycle. If we make that assumption, and we're right, then we rightly protect that living human's right to life from that stage of development, and don't deny not-yet-attached rights prior to that stage of development. But, if we're wrong, then we introduce some range of development during which that living human has the right to life, but that right is not recognized/protected - and therefore we risk unjustly denying that right by taking that human's life.

Up to now, this should all be black-and-white, straight-forward, and non-controversial, I think/hope?

But now, we have to make a decision - a risk-based decision: where do we draw the line regarding risking the unjust taking of a human life?

I contend that it can be entirely consistent with secular reasoning to take a least-risk view, and choose to recognize the right to life as early in the developmental process as possible. (It could also be entirely consistent with secular reasoning to rationalize some other degree of risk, by choosing to recognize the right to life at some other, later stage of development.)

While people may disagree on the decision, the consequences of that decision should not be in dispute.


I think we're finally getting somewhere productive. In terms of a secular argument (because, in this thread, I'm not arguing my personal, religious beliefs or from a religious perspective), I am choosing not to address "at conception". If you say that there is no secular argument that can be made for an "at conception" attachment of rights, I'm not attempting to refute that assertion.

yes. I think we are getting somewhere. We can drop the secular "at conception" part of the argument. I'd rather have a discussion than an internet debate.

I think the least risk case you're making is similar to Pascal's wager. I've called it the "just in case" argument. It's a rationale, and acceptable, in the absence of a more objective argument. None of us are really on solid, objectively moral, ground here. It is largely worldview dependent.

Anyway, whatever we call that argument, I would not say it's a "good" argument, where I'm saying that a "good" argument in this case leads to some objective and logical conclusion. Incidentally, I don't think anyone has a "good" argument in that sense. I could reason, and I have good argument, that for society's good, it should be a policy that has the closest consensus and at least acknowleges that at some point in a pregnancy, it's too late, and that the child has a right to live after that point. That's probably not acceptable to you personally. But I think the nation has enough division that this is just taking it to another order of magnitude.

Also, the "least risk" argument fails to acknowledge that the mother, as the host, has at least some right to abort before some time that society says it's too late, morally. I don't think there's an objective reason to place the child's rights above the womans across the board.

We're both in agreement that there is a point during the pregnancy where it becomes immoral to favor the woman's rights over the unborn baby's rights. We disagree when that is.

 

[jamil]

I didn't mention black slaves in the Americas for a reason. I just used slavery and as you have acknowledge it happened among people that looked the same.
You are IMO arguing that the recognition of rights stem from morality, I could agree with that.

But IMO the right exists even in the absence of that morality, so that society didn't predate rights but it may have predated the recognition of them.

Again, that would be the recognition of said right. Not the existence of the right.

Again does that squirrel have the right to life? Regardless if we feel it is moral to take that life or not, or if that squirrel has morals. In my opinion yes, it is a natural and inherent right.

And you better not let Jedi hear you say that about raccoons, everyone knows that they are his best friends.

But it's my contention that if it's an objective moral, it had to predate the discovery of it. So it does not matter when it's recognized, other than we can't hold people responsible for not having the moral maturity of the current age.

And again, the problem I have with rights preceding morality, rights are dependent on right and wrong. I mean. if some morals are absolute. And rights derive from morals. Then the rights that derive from morals would also be absolute. But it sounds like you're making the case that regardless, if rights are absolute, then

Okay so does the squirrel have a right to life? That's a good question. I tend not to think in the same way humans do. Is there an underlying moral that would support such a right for squirrels? I think you might say morals are unnecessary for a squirrel to have rights. I don't think a right can stand without some absolute moral underpinning. So I'd say there would have to be some absolute moral truth that supports such a right. That feels subjective. I suppose I could make something up. But then I'd have to be a veeg. And I don't want to be a veeg. Not that I eat squirrel. That's a ****ing rodent. I don't eat rats either.

 

[actaeon277]

You guys have sucked all the fun out of the abortion thread.

 

[jamil]

You guys have sucked all the fun out of the abortion thread.

 

[jamil]

Careful. I might have to start laying down some lorem ipsum posts about pineapple on pizza.

 

[actaeon277]

I'd hate to ban you, but if I must...

 

[jamil]

Okay. You asked for it.

lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipiscing elit dignissim pulvinar hac inceptos montes erat ultrices per nam lectus fames consequat tortor faucibus sociis and mi ultricies velit scelerisque laoreet at pellentesque pharetra ridiculus cras metus nibh imperdiet semper tempus et vestibulum orci varius id non tincidunt accumsan diam quam justo egestas ornare eleifend auctor mattis commodo platea vulputate porttitor neque libero euismod aliquam etiam malesuada rhoncus risus sed habitasse duis vel lacus feugiat lobortis penatibus aptent in a parturient ligula massa fusce dui porta phasellus ad posuere purus suscipit magna odio primis ullamcorper habitant vehicula ut iaculis aliquet mus arcu morbi interdum curabitur cursus placerat nulla blandit torquent ante vitae nascetur eget netus est sollicitudin sapien integer dapibus lacinia bibendum praesent dis molestie condimentum potenti dictum aenean pretium peparoni fringilla tellus sociosqu hendrerit eu tristique nostra nisl viverra nunc tempor augue nisi rutrum taciti mauris nec luctus urna turpis himenaeos elementum leo quis sagittis felis dictumst venenatis class quisque *** natoque nullam gravida litora sem convallis maecenas conubia sodales curae facilisi eros proin enim facilisis suspendisse tincidunt taciti placerat nostra nisi sit risus blandit sagittis consectetur dapibus facilisi dignissim diam lacinia cras pulvinar praesent tempor velit duis netus viverra dis nam feugiat porttitor nisl dictumst non in malesuada odio neque morbi vulputate suscipit lacus on sed faucibus urna torquent pretium suspendisse phasellus vehicula luctus vitae natoque quisque integer posuere turpis adipiscing montes aenean molestie mauris varius penatibus eu tortor consequat lorem etiam platea felis rhoncus pellentesque vestibulum libero eleifend interdum bibendum fringilla ultrices dolor sollicitudin imperdiet fusce augue curae habitant orci *** proin nibh maecenas leo sociosqu ligula hendrerit nullam enim litora massa lobortis nulla eget nec ullamcorper tristique elit auctor magna at semper amet id aliquam egestas dui laoreet tempus scelerisque purus accumsan per nunc sociis potenti ridiculus ad inceptos himenaeos sapien aptent elementum cursus condimentum iaculis dictum a primis ut eros tellus hac euismod nascetur ante vel est donec fames sem senectus ornare porta aliquet class mattis arcu convallis ipsum mus venenatis parturient pharetra mi curabitur conubia rutrum ultricies quis metus facilisis habitasse sodales gravida commodo quam lectus justo et eleifend taciti nostra amet elementum maecenas mi faucibus orci imperdiet sodales vulputate varius sollicitudin aliquam ultrices habitant netus himenaeos morbi facilisis ligula quis in posuere interdum quam id phasellus vehicula placerat viverra eros duis rutrum consectetur nec tortor gravida est augue sed purus condimentum vitae lacus ut vel lobortis ridiculus donec luctus proin torquent montes dolor tempor porttitor felis dignissim lacinia ad cursus fringilla malesuada accumsan sit habitasse at ullamcorper diam quisque feugiat commodo aptent litora nam hac sociosqu non lectus tellus iaculis praesent etiam dictumst mattis sagittis curae fames per sapien semper tincidunt leo libero euismod consequat metus ipsum eu bibendum elit integer nibh lorem nascetur turpis potenti parturient ultricies mauris pulvinar risus curabitur aenean class pharetra tempus et pretium urna nisi nunc auctor venenatis fusce rhoncus nisl hendrerit justo velit sociis *** senectus blandit dui conubia dictum scelerisque egestas magna adipiscing eget primis vestibulum facilisi tristique massa dapibus convallis molestie nulla aliquet a arcu erat nullam dis porta odio platea neque penatibus laoreet suscipit natoque sem mus ante pellentesque ornare suspendisse cras enim inceptos nisl elit tempor ultricies metus dui torquent hac sem habitasse dictumst purus convallis dolor aliquet vehicula sociis orci justo tristique nibh senectus adipiscing aptent ullamcorper facilisi hendrerit luctus sodales molestie mi rhoncus libero curabitur placerat dis porta massa tellus aliquam felis praesent tincidunt *** morbi est dictum penatibus donec lectus potenti quisque quam vel nulla sollicitudin mus cursus feugiat non interdum ornare ultrices faucibus netus eget himenaeos rutrum etiam sagittis vulputate proin lacinia varius pellentesque viverra sociosqu ligula nostra consectetur curae ridiculus enim dignissim blandit ante facilisis sit mattis urna litora primis platea arcu ipsum phasellus gravida taciti dapibus pretium maecenas magna duis bibendum in imperdiet odio aenean lorem leo commodo suspendisse semper a lobortis condimentum class risus cras fames malesuada venenatis erat porttitor elementum pizza diam integer tortor per suscipit consequat euismod nascetur scelerisque posuere inceptos velit montes laoreet parturient iaculis auctor fringilla ut nam augue nunc sed tempus at mauris eu nisi neque amet quis pulvinar vitae vestibulum pharetra ad eleifend et natoque lacus egestas conubia id sapien fusce nullam accumsan nec eros habitant luctus mi taciti natoque nostra at ut aliquet potenti tempus netus egestas litora integer quisque sagittis ornare semper himenaeos bibendum est ante adipiscing torquent per faucibus aliquam auctor dictum accumsan rutrum rhoncus ultrices porta nibh vehicula blandit tortor condimentum augue convallis tellus nam platea eleifend praesent cursus sodales molestie posuere fringilla nisi ad dolor senectus hendrerit sit enim nascetur aptent gravida sociis vel montes arcu conubia etiam feugiat odio commodo hac ultricies maecenas nec nisl sem sed phasellus penatibus scelerisque tristique nullam sollicitudin mus consectetur proin eget iaculis dignissim elementum diam erat elit lectus euismod leo nunc varius suscipit lobortis justo *** consequat eu curabitur et tempor class facilisi purus duis non dis lacinia parturient massa a pretium libero malesuada dapibus lorem dui porttitor id urna eros sociosqu suspendisse ipsum quis mauris habitasse vulputate donec pharetra felis fames orci placerat ridiculus nulla viverra dictumst aenean ligula metus laoreet amet risus primis fusce velit quam pellentesque mattis neque imperdiet vestibulum lacus turpis curae morbi facilisis sapien interdum tincidunt inceptos ullamcorper pulvinar cras vitae venenatis in habitant magna habitasse luctus ultricies fames scelerisque vel himenaeos quisque aptent facilisis nisl sociis consequat lectus risus vitae iaculis phasellus aenean suspendisse natoque a aliquam lacus elementum proin purus dolor lacinia nec convallis viverra eleifend sed nam pulvinar penatibus posuere hendrerit urna cras class vulputate dictumst turpis porta magna habitant hac nibh senectus interdum tristique consectetur mauris arcu sit eros rhoncus fringilla ridiculus potenti curabitur is vestibulum porttitor vehicula nascetur tortor libero massa pharetra gravida feugiat facilisi malesuada adipiscing parturient pellentesque varius sem orci tellus ante sodales etiam morbi lobortis laoreet semper rutrum placerat diam ligula suscipit nullam quis lorem amet nulla maecenas in felis litora leo sapien dictum at nisi inceptos augue blandit nunc accumsan ad tempor ut ornare ultrices gross.

 

[actaeon277]

 

[KG1]

If I may interject something here, I gather from the discussion between you Jamil and Chip that you both agree a two celled zygote is both living and human at that point as a matter of science

Where it looks to me like the departure takes place in the discussion is the philosophical question of whether they are "human enough" to have rights.

To me if they are recognized as human and living by science then that should bring an answer to the philosophical divide over rights by default. Either they are living and human at that point or they are not and not a question of whether they are "human enough"

 

[jamil]

If I may interject something here, I gather from the discussion between you Jamil and Chip that you both agree a two celled zygote is both living and human at that point as a matter of science

Where it looks to me like the departure takes place in the discussion is the philosophical question of whether they are "human enough" to have rights.

To me if they are recognized as human and living by science then that should bring an answer to the philosophical divide over rights by default. Either they are living and human at that point or they are not. There is no such thing as "human enough"

yeah, but that's an opinion isn't it? Did you look at the two pictures I posted contrasting a zygote from the newborn baby having its umbilical cord cut? I think clearly at some point the unborn have a moral right to live. I'm not so sure the that right overrides the mother's from conception though.

 

[KG1]

yeah, but that's an opinion isn't it? Did you look at the two pictures I posted contrasting a zygote from the newborn baby having its umbilical cord cut? I think clearly at some point the unborn have a moral right to live. I'm not so sure the that right overrides the mother's from conception though.

I see it as a conflict if you agree with science that a two cell zygote is living and human but in the same breath you ask if they are "human enough?" My contention is if you agree with science that they are living and human then that negates an argument over rights based on the question of "human enough"

Either they are recognized as living and human from that point on or they are not. If they are then by default they are intitled to their right to continue to live once it is established that they are already living and human.