Abortion - been bothering me

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2002-10-03 06:19pm

Looks like I should have come earlier--all the points have already been made

RayCav of ASVS · Post by **RayCav of ASVS** » 2002-10-03 06:38pm

Ok, I really hate both types of people right now.

To Pro-choicers

First of all, you complain that religous people try to shove their beliefs down others throats. YET THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU FUCKERS ARE DOING! especially you, Durandal...now, I really like you and all, but right now, I can say "fuck off"

Second, you seem to not give a damn about "rights" - you're too caught up in what I believe is legal banter. Saying that a cow has more rights just makes me fucking sick. I hope you fuck yourselves to hell.

To Pro-lifers

You also make me fucking sick. "oh, oh, don't do it, LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION!" Fuck yourselves to hell too.

I only wish it were legel to freely kill whoever the fucking hell I want....

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-03 06:38pm

2) The point remains that an action taken will nullify the future life of a human being. It doesn't bother you. Another action taken will nullify the future life of a human being. It DOES bother you. The only difference is that one is a clump of cells while the other is a sperm that might have become your child if you hadn't worn a condom.

This may not be relevant, but I think the point Talen is trying to make is that the odds of action #1 nullifying the future life of a human being are astronomical, while the odds of #2 most certainly aren't.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-03 06:49pm

Cyril wrote: This may not be relevant, but I think the point Talen is trying to make is that the odds of action #1 nullifying the future life of a human being are astronomical, while the odds of #2 most certainly aren't.

On the contrary, in the period of time refered (sex while ovulation) the chances of getting pregnant are high.

You must understand that law is not about personal belief. That's why you cannot advocate a law dictating everybody must believe in Jesus, for example, because it's really stupid to let people choose to rot in hell.

This theme can and must be thought off in scientific therms. The fact remains that you cannot look to a lump of cells and think it as a human being. And, of course, in a proper futuristic lab, each and every cell of our body is a possible future life.

Edit: BTW, Raycav, have you lost your mind?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2002-10-03 07:00pm

I support contraception, and later in life a little procedure called a "vasectomy".

But to be more on-topic, I have to agree with the "objective and legal" stance; no brain activity, no life.

Ray-Cav: Who don't you hate? Ignoramuses? Fence-sitters with no opinion on the subject?

At least some people have convictions... I daresay that's a better state of mind than just perpetually "going with the flow".

RayCav of ASVS · Post by **RayCav of ASVS** » 2002-10-03 07:08pm

Uraniun235 wrote:I support contraception, and later in life a little procedure called a "vasectomy".

But to be more on-topic, I have to agree with the "objective and legal" stance; no brain activity, no life.

Ray-Cav: Who don't you hate? Ignoramuses? Fence-sitters with no opinion on the subject?

At least some people have convictions... I daresay that's a better state of mind than just perpetually "going with the flow".

I hate ignoramuses as much as you. I have to put up with them every fucking day. Hell, I put up with them in this fucking thread

There's a thin line between "having strong convictions" and being "fanatical"...looks like you ALL crossed that line.

And how do you define "going with the flow"? If you define it as "going with the majority", then it is impossible to NOT go with the flow in this situation. I percieve most people as being pro-choice. Most people that I know percieve most people in the country as pro-life.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-03 07:20pm

RayCav of ASVS wrote:There's a thin line between "having strong convictions" and being "fanatical"...looks like you ALL crossed that line.

Get over yourself, Ray. A fanatic is one who ignores logic because of his fervour. Since you have failed to find any logical flaw (indeed, you're not even TRYING) in the argument that an embryo has no FUCKING BRAIN and therefore no thoughts (and therefore no rights), what right do you have to accuse anyone of being fanatics?

It is not "shoving your beliefs down other peoples' throats" to tell them you think they're wrong, particularly when they ask the question. YOU started this thread; don't bitch just because you don't like the answer.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-03 07:21pm

To Pro-choicers

First of all, you complain that religous people try to shove their beliefs down others throats. YET THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU FUCKERS ARE DOING! especially you, Durandal...now, I really like you and all, but right now, I can say "fuck off"

How so? I am critically evaluating and questioning your views. The fact that you can't defend them on rational grounds is not my problem; it's yours. Similarly, the fact that I am pointing out the flaws in your ideas does not equate to "shoving beliefs down your throat." You're just pissed because I said your ideas were irrational and subjective, which they are.

Second, you seem to not give a damn about "rights" - you're too caught up in what I believe is legal banter. Saying that a cow has more rights just makes me fucking sick. I hope you fuck yourselves to hell.

I don't give a flying fuck if it makes you "sick." Explain what's wrong with the idea. You've been running around bitching that we're following the "letter of the law" or whatever bullshit phrase you choose to attack our position, but you never fucking explain yourself. Why are non-sentient beings deserving of rights? Where did I say that cows have more rights? We fucking eat the things, or didn't you notice? I never said that a cow has more rights than a human embryo; I said that the application of rights is dependent upon certain criteria, and clumps of cells and embryos do not meet those criteria.

So, explain yourself or just shut your whiny little mouth.

RayCav of ASVS · Post by **RayCav of ASVS** » 2002-10-03 07:22pm

Darth Wong wrote:
RayCav of ASVS wrote:There's a thin line between "having strong convictions" and being "fanatical"...looks like you ALL crossed that line.
Get over yourself, Ray. A fanatic is one who ignores logic because of his fervour. Since you have failed to find any logical flaw (indeed, you're not even TRYING) in the argument that an embryo has no FUCKING BRAIN and therefore no thoughts (and therefore no rights), what right do you have to accuse anyone of being fanatics?

It is not "shoving your beliefs down other peoples' throats" to tell them you think they're wrong, particularly when they ask the question. YOU started this thread; don't bitch just because you don't like the answer.

I can feel my blood pressure rise again....

I just wanna say...bye

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2002-10-03 07:31pm

RayCav of ASVS wrote:Ok, I really hate both types of people right now.

To Pro-choicers

First of all, you complain that religous people try to shove their beliefs down others throats. YET THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU FUCKERS ARE DOING! especially you, Durandal...now, I really like you and all, but right now, I can say "fuck off"

Second, you seem to not give a damn about "rights" - you're too caught up in what I believe is legal banter. Saying that a cow has more rights just makes me fucking sick. I hope you fuck yourselves to hell.

To Pro-lifers

You also make me fucking sick. "oh, oh, don't do it, LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION!" Fuck yourselves to hell too.

I only wish it were legel to freely kill whoever the fucking hell I want....

Holy crap, RayCav! First the admission of getting off on the death of a beautiful woman, and now this. Am I the only one envisioning this guy walking into a Denny's with a shotgun and opening fire?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-03 07:38pm

You must understand that law is not about personal belief. That's why you cannot advocate a law dictating everybody must believe in Jesus, for example, because it's really stupid to let people choose to rot in hell.

I know. That was why I noted that my beliefs were personal; I never said they should be forced down anyone's throats.

Cough.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-03 07:47pm

Cyril wrote: I know. That was why I noted that my beliefs were personal; I never said they should be forced down anyone's throats.

Cough.

Well, it was just a figure of speech. I understood that. Sorry.
By the way, personally I also dislike the idea of abortion, at any time.

But I never ever argue such a theme based on my feelings.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2002-10-03 08:10pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:lol, of course not. preventing human life is wrong. a conceived egg is in the process of growing. an egg or sperm, on it's own, will never change. girls throw away an egg once a month, and guys prolly throw away millions of sperm over the course of a week. the little cells there are irrelevant, because they will never develop into a sentient being. even during unprotected sex, millions of sperm arent going to be doing anything. only one or two will, maybe more if your enthusiastic. certainly not hundreds or thousands. one doesnt worry about one sperm that hasnt done anything, and will prolly end in the toilet later in the night.
Broken record syndrome.

Two points (AGAIN):

1) A fertilized embryo won't do anything without the support of the mother's body. If she withdraws that support, the embryo dies. It has no thoughts, no feelings, and feels no pain. Big deal. If you removed that embryo from her body, it would die on the tabletop, just like a sperm.

2) The point remains that an action taken will nullify the future life of a human being. It doesn't bother you. Another action taken will nullify the future life of a human being. It DOES bother you. The only difference is that one is a clump of cells while the other is a sperm that might have become your child if you hadn't worn a condom.

I knocked up Rebecca twice. She carried the baby to term twice. I love my two boys, and I would rather not abort a baby. However, there is a difference between what you personally feel comfortable with and what you can reasonably force others to obey. Laws which apply to anyone but yourself can ONLY be based on objective reality, not personal subjective beliefs, prejudices, or gut feelings. Objectively and legally, if there's no brain activity, there's no life as we know it. Accept it.

maybe I'm not being clear on this?
sperm dont matter. you can leave them in the body till they feel like leaving, they wont do anything.
eggs dont matter. you can leave them in the body till they feel like leaving, they wont do anything.
fertilized egg, if left in the body, *will* do something. when it leaves the body, it's a newborn.

condoms stop the two from meeting. no big deal. abortion, when the two have met, cuts the life support. it cancels a being in the process of growth. egg and sperm arent in the process of growth on their own, which is why I have no qualms about them.

legally, of course, abortion is fine. perhaps it should stay that way - I find the idea of a homemade abortion with a coathanger even more repulsive then a professional one. but ethically, I must disagree that it's ok.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-10-04 03:11am

Durandal wrote:
If a child behaves in an irresponsible way, can you kill it as it's brain is not fully matured?
Strawman. He wasn't talking about maturity, he was talking about brain activity, which the misbehaving child certainly has.

If you take an example of someone who achives 'enlightnment' as everyone else does not think on the same level as said enlightened person does this give enlightened person the right to walk around killing people he finds inconvinent "a queue, they are in my way I shall mow them down with an assault rifle!"
Same strawman.

By stating that if it cannot think to a level you consider acceptable then you are condoning the actions of the evil super being Jehovah. who supposedly is all powerful, created humanity, and has incomprehensible thoughts. Therefore he is justified in all his activities in the bible, is not evil, now let us pray.
Strawman. The absence of thinking isn't equivalent to a degree of thinking.

this is a ludicrous line of argument which has no morality at all beyond the level of power without responsibility.
You're right; it's a good thing that no one is arguing that.

It takes two to tango. where is the father? if the father is also incarcerated then the logical option would be to put the child up for adoption.
And force the mother to pay astronomical medical bills for the delivery. What an enticing option.

The purpouse of life is to ensure the continuation of yourself and seconderily your species.

Slothful assertion without evidence. How does a biological drive equate to purpose?

self defence is the first, and so overides the second. More to the point this analogue is flawed, unless the child is a clear danger to the life of the mother, it does not apply.
False premise.

that is non-consentual euthanasia, which is undeniably wrong. The remote possibility in other examples of regeneration or artificial repair should preculude it. The high chance of regeneration in a fetus also precludes it.

Inconsistent reasoning. Why does the far less remote possibility of a miscarriage not vindicate a first-trimester abortion for you, then?

They are analogies not strawmen, they would become strawmen when I attempted to claim that you believed that.

Biological drive is the purpouse of being for all life forms. I was not talking 'spiritually', your slothful misreading means nothing.

If a man is likely to die of a heart attack, does that give you the right to kill him?

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2002-10-04 04:52am

NecronLord wrote:Biological drive is the purpouse of being for all life forms.

I agree on principle but not literally, you have to define it a bit tighter than that.

Most pack animals have members of their pack that never reproduce.
Same thing with nesting insects like ants, bees etc.

Since we humans are pack animals, the only thing you need to secure is that the pack is producing enough offspring.
Which we are.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-10-04 11:10am

Spoonist wrote:
NecronLord wrote:Biological drive is the purpouse of being for all life forms.
I agree on principle but not literally, you have to define it a bit tighter than that.

Most pack animals have members of their pack that never reproduce.
Same thing with nesting insects like ants, bees etc.

Since we humans are pack animals, the only thing you need to secure is that the pack is producing enough offspring.
Which we are.

not for lack of trying

the secondary function is to promote the survival and advancement of the species (that sounds so much liike the racist fuckwit dogma

, yet is so different in meaning

)

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-10-04 11:49am

Darth Wong wrote:
NecronLord wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:No, the real question is whether the first-trimester embryo has rights, and a brain-dead clump of cells does NOT have rights because it has no thoughts. Ergo, it is not "alive" in the sense that it is brain-dead.
If a child behaves in an irresponsible way, can you kill it as it's brain is not fully matured?
Strawman. An immature child is not brain-dead, unlike an embryo.

see below

If you take an example of someone who achives 'enlightnment' as everyone else does not think on the same level as said enlightened person does this give enlightened person the right to walk around killing people he finds inconvinent "a queue, they are in my way I shall mow them down with an assault rifle!"
Pointless repetition of said strawman.

see below

By stating that if it cannot think to a level you consider acceptable then you are condoning the actions of the evil super being Jehovah. who supposedly is all powerful, created humanity, and has incomprehensible thoughts. Therefore he is justified in all his activities in the bible, is not evil, now let us pray.
Bullshit. We are not drawing an arbitrary line in the sand; ZERO BRAIN ACTIVITY is not an arbitrary line; it is the pure definition of brain-death. Also: fallacious attempt to impugn opponent with guilt by association.

An arbitery line in the sand by considering human as the baseline. Similarly the evil super being standards the he could define humans as brain dead as they are unable to create the dome of the sky

with their minds. Regardless of what level you being logical line drawing in the sand at, you are still drawing a line in the sand

this is a ludicrous line of argument which has no morality at all beyond the level of power without responsibility.
Oh really! You think it "ludicrous" to think that a being with no brain activity cannot think or feel, and is not "alive" in the sense of having rights?

This line of argument when applied to other examples beings to look ludicrous. Humm?

Alive in what way? Can it

move not initially, but once is is a ball of cells it can react on a primative level.
respire Yes, it takes in and metabolises oxygen
sense again not initially, but once is is a ball of cells it can react on a primative level.
grow definitly
reproduce certainly
excrete Yes, though it is running quite efficently as most of that work is done by the mother
does it require nutrition? Yes

How can you murder something which is officially brain dead?
that is non-consentual euthanasia, which is undeniably wrong.
You would keep brain-dead vegetable-state people alive indefinitely, then?

if they had such a high chance of making at total and complete recovery, of course

The remote possibility in other examples of regeneration or artificial repair should preculude it. The high chance of regeneration in a fetus also precludes it.
Fallaciously equating future potentials to actualities. If I have sex with my wife on the day she's ovulating, there is a VERY high chance that she will get pregnant. In our case, we hit the target on the first month of trying each time. So if I have sex with her and wear a condom, I probably just nullified a future baby. Does that bother me? No. Are you saying that it would bother YOU? You can't equate future potentials to actualities; in the first trimester, you do NOT have a thinking, feeling baby; you have a clump of cells. Your personal subjective beliefs notwithstanding, those are the facts.

This is a real strawman.
a feotus (sp?) is already fertilised. Gametes have no rights. I did not claim that they do. I am not some raving bible thumper who has a problem with contraception. I might add that at birth babys do not think, you do not have a thinking feeling baby until about a moth or two after birth. The brain has nat absorbed enough information to have even rudimentary thoughts at that time. Neither does it have emotion (other than possibly food, and you could possibly think spite, when it wakes you up in the middle of the night

). If you believe that I am arguing that the ability to feel pain and react to stimulus gives a creature rights you are mistaken.

strawmen
Two people here have claimed that the jehovah comparison and others made by me are strawmen. This is not true, they are analogies, for them to become a strawman I would have to claim that the opposition believesin this analogy. I did not. At no time did I accuse anyone of beliving in killing small childen or in the righteousness of Jehovah. These are analogies, Applying the same reasoning to different situations in order to demonstrate the problems with the line of reasoning is not a strawman. It is an analogy. A legitimate technique.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-04 12:24pm

They are analogies not strawmen, they would become strawmen when I attempted to claim that you believed that.

They are strawmen because you attacked those arguments, not the ones Mike and I put forth. They are also invalid analogies.

Biological drive is the purpouse of being for all life forms. I was not talking 'spiritually', your slothful misreading means nothing.

Slothful assertion without evidence. You have absolutely no evidence that life has an overbearing purpose, and you have no evidence that biological drives equate to said purpose. It is fallacious to assume that natural activities should take precedence over critical thinking processes just because they're natural.

So, that is a slothful (lazy) assertion (claim) without evidence (without evidence). Get it yet?

If a man is likely to die of a heart attack, does that give you the right to kill him?

What does this have to do with anything?

An arbitery line in the sand by considering human as the baseline. Similarly the evil super being standards the he could define humans as brain dead as they are unable to create the dome of the sky with their minds. Regardless of what level you being logical line drawing in the sand at, you are still drawing a line in the sand

Wrong. We are defining zero brain activity as brain-dead. That does not involve a baseline comparison. Defining the number zero as nothing does not require the use of any other integers.

This line of argument when applied to other examples beings to look ludicrous. Humm?

Alive in what way? Can it

move not initially, but once is is a ball of cells it can react on a primative level.
respire Yes, it takes in and metabolises oxygen
sense again not initially, but once is is a ball of cells it can react on a primative level.
grow definitly
reproduce certainly
excrete Yes, though it is running quite efficently as most of that work is done by the mother
does it require nutrition? Yes

Red herring. The question is not whether it is alive, but whether it is a human life deserving of rights. Cows are alive, moreso than the embryo, yet we kill them for food.

So, I'll reiterate. An embryo is not a human being and thus not deserving of the rights given to human beings. Potential is completely irrelevant.

strawmen
Two people here have claimed that the jehovah comparison and others made by me are strawmen. This is not true, they are analogies, for them to become a strawman I would have to claim that the opposition believesin this analogy. I did not. At no time did I accuse anyone of beliving in killing small childen or in the righteousness of Jehovah. These are analogies, Applying the same reasoning to different situations in order to demonstrate the problems with the line of reasoning is not a strawman. It is an analogy. A legitimate technique.

Bullshit. You took Mike's stance on brain-dead embryos and applied it to things which are not brain-dead but only immature. The two are not analogous, so that is a fucking strawman. Your pathetic attempts to disguise your strawman as legitimate argumentation aren't fooling anyone.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-10-04 02:30pm

You can debate the "when life begins" stuff all you want and the two sides will never agree. I take a different approach in that the abortion and unwanted pregnacy issue should be treated as a esculation of treatment.

1 personal responsiblity(yeah, I know, good luck)
2 standard conterception
3 so called morning after treatment from spermaside to massive dose of birth control

4 adoption(why kill it when others will want it)
5 last resort is abortion

Too many people want to skip over everything and go straight for abortion. Personally I don't like the idea of abortion, but nobody asked me to make the official policy. However to rely on abortion as birth control is to distort the issue, one should take advantage of all options before using drastic measures. Besides, why can a women kill it if she wants but a man has to pay for it no matter if he wants it or not. If its truly pro choise, why can't I choose not to support it, if she can choose not to have it. Pro choise my ass.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-10-04 02:36pm

Durandal wrote:
They are analogies not strawmen, they would become strawmen when I attempted to claim that you believed that.
They are strawmen because you attacked those arguments, not the ones Mike and I put forth. They are also invalid analogies.

make up your mind. As stated, their purpouse was the ridicule of the line of reasoning. Your botched attempts at a nitpick are futile. Sease and desist

Biological drive is the purpouse of being for all life forms. I was not talking 'spiritually', your slothful misreading means nothing.
Slothful assertion without evidence. You have absolutely no evidence that life has an overbearing purpose, and you have no evidence that biological drives equate to said purpose. It is fallacious to assume that natural activities should take precedence over critical thinking processes just because they're natural.

what is the function of life forms? They have no function, therefore what aspect of their behaviour characterises their existance. Survival. Is this going over your head yet? Observation of life forms overules your subjective opinion.

So, that is a slothful (lazy) assertion (claim) without evidence (without evidence). Get it yet?

No your pedantic flawed logic does not cognitise.

If a man is likely to die of a heart attack, does that give you the right to kill him?
What does this have to do with anything?

It illustrates the difference between artificial abortion and miscarrige.

An arbitery line in the sand by considering human as the baseline. Similarly the evil super being standards the he could define humans as brain dead as they are unable to create the dome of the sky with their minds. Regardless of what level you being logical line drawing in the sand at, you are still drawing a line in the sand
Wrong. We are defining zero brain activity as brain-dead. That does not involve a baseline comparison. Defining the number zero as nothing does not require the use of any other integers.

Your flawed logic is again present. Brain dead is a line in the sand. Idiot.

This line of argument when applied to other examples beings to look ludicrous. Humm?

Alive in what way? Can it

move not initially, but once is is a ball of cells it can react on a primative level.
respire Yes, it takes in and metabolises oxygen
sense again not initially, but once is is a ball of cells it can react on a primative level.
grow definitly
reproduce certainly
excrete Yes, though it is running quite efficently as most of that work is done by the mother
does it require nutrition? Yes
Red herring. The question is not whether it is alive, but whether it is a human life deserving of rights. Cows are alive, moreso than the embryo, yet we kill them for food.

As when in context.. I stated The embryo will become a fully functioning human. Arbotion is artificial interference. This is also over your head i assume?

So, I'll reiterate. An embryo is not a human being and thus not deserving of the rights given to human beings. Potential is completely irrelevant.

Subjective opinion, irrelevent. You may believe that bush is not deserving of the rights given humans. It is still murder to kill him, Your opinion means nothing whatsoever.

strawmen
Two people here have claimed that the jehovah comparison and others made by me are strawmen. This is not true, they are analogies, for them to become a strawman I would have to claim that the opposition believesin this analogy. I did not. At no time did I accuse anyone of beliving in killing small childen or in the righteousness of Jehovah. These are analogies, Applying the same reasoning to different situations in order to demonstrate the problems with the line of reasoning is not a strawman. It is an analogy. A legitimate technique.
Bullshit. You took Mike's stance on brain-dead embryos and applied it to things which are not brain-dead but only immature. The two are not analogous, so that is a fucking strawman. Your pathetic attempts to disguise your strawman as legitimate argumentation aren't fooling anyone.

Again see the definition of Strawmen. Your ignorance does not make them strawmen, they remain analogies. You have bumbled onto a point; the two are not analogous. However the reasoning is analogous and therefore stands.

Quick Definition;
Strawman:
The fallacy of attacking a strawman occurs when someone attacks a caricature of a position, and tries to pass that as an argument against the actual position.

in conclusion

Your pathetic attempts to grasp at strawmen fool no-one.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-05 08:34pm

make up your mind. As stated, their purpouse was the ridicule of the line of reasoning.

Don't trip over yourself while backpedaling. "Uh, yeah I was just making fun of him, huh huh huh. It wasn't my real argument, even though I defended it up to this point..." You're full of shit. The analogies are completely invalid, as you yourself admit, so they are strawmen.

Your botched attempts at a nitpick are futile. Sease and desist

"Bla bla bla, I can use big words like 'futile' and '[cease]'."

what is the function of life forms? They have no function, therefore what aspect of their behaviour characterises their existance. Survival. Is this going over your head yet? Observation of life forms overules your subjective opinion.

Observation tells us that life wants to survive and reproduce by virtue of biological drives. Observation does not tell us that life's purpose is to survive and reproduce. The notion of a purpose is purely philosophical.

It illustrates the difference between artificial abortion and miscarrige.

How so? Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy through non-natural mechanisms. Miscarriage is the result of natural mechanisms, but why should we believe that natural mechanisms are somehow more benign than our own? You assume that nature should be left alone, even when there's nothing really wrong with interfering in this case.

Your flawed logic is again present. Brain dead is a line in the sand. Idiot.

"Brain-dead" is a definition. I illustrated this for you mathematically, and you ignored the example, reverting to broken record tactics.

Let's sum up:

•I've asked you to prove that a biological drive to reproduce constitutes an overbearing "purpose" in life, and you haven't.
•I've asked you to prove that life has a purpose at all, and you haven't.

As when in context.. I stated The embryo will become a fully functioning human. Arbotion is artificial interference. This is also over your head i assume?

Subjective opinion, irrelevent. You may believe that bush is not deserving of the rights given humans. It is still murder to kill him, Your opinion means nothing whatsoever.

Sophistry. The only criterion for having human rights is actually being human. Human rights aren't "given"; all humans simply have them. Things that are not human don't have them. Perhaps you'd like big, bold letters.

EMBRYOS ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS, THEREFORE THEY DON'T HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT HUMAN.

Get it? Potential doesn't equal actual. Do you walk by a packet of seeds and go, "Look! Trees!"?

Again see the definition of Strawmen. Your ignorance does not make them strawmen, they remain analogies. You have bumbled onto a point; the two are not analogous. However the reasoning is analogous and therefore stands.

What?! "The two examples aren't analogous, but the reasoning from the flawed analogy is valid, anyway"? What mind-altering drugs did you take to arrive at that conclusion?! If the example isn't analogous, reasoning based on that analogy is invalid by pure definition! Since the analogy depicts a scenario that would not result from the argument, it is an invalid analogy and a strawman, because you are attacking an argument that is not your opponent's.

<snip definition which NecronLord obviously doesn't understand>

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-10-06 08:33am

Durandal wrote:
make up your mind. As stated, their purpouse was the ridicule of the line of reasoning.

Don't trip over yourself while backpedaling. "Uh, yeah I was just making fun of him, huh huh huh. It wasn't my real argument, even though I defended it up to this point..." You're full of shit. The analogies are completely invalid, as you yourself admit, so they are strawmen.

Firstly let me say how glad I am to see that you have spent over a day thinking up this feeble flame. Good Job! Again you ignore the definition of strawman, and fail to give any reason why they are invalid. If explaing to you why I use analogies is backpeddling then yes, I am backpeadaling

Your botched attempts at a nitpick are futile. Sease and desist
"Bla bla bla, I can use big words like 'futile' and '[cease]'."

flame flame what is your point Draco?

what is the function of life forms? They have no function, therefore what aspect of their behaviour characterises their existance. Survival. Is this going over your head yet? Observation of life forms overules your subjective opinion.
Observation tells us that life wants to survive and reproduce by virtue of biological drives. Observation does not tell us that life's purpose is to survive and reproduce. The notion of a purpose is purely philosophical.

blather. This is a morality question, were it a sceintific question, then there would be no argument, as it clearly works. idiot

It illustrates the difference between artificial abortion and miscarrige.
How so? Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy through non-natural mechanisms. Miscarriage is the result of natural mechanisms, but why should we believe that natural mechanisms are somehow more benign than our own? You assume that nature should be left alone, even when there's nothing really wrong with interfering in this case.

Your personal subjective opinion, explained on your site has nothing to do with the matter.

Your flawed logic is again present. Brain dead is a line in the sand. Idiot.
"Brain-dead" is a definition. I illustrated this for you mathematically, and you ignored the example, reverting to broken record tactics.

Repeating oneself so that ignoramuses is not a broken record tactic.

Let's sum up:

•I've asked you to prove that a biological drive to reproduce constitutes an overbearing "purpose" in life, and you haven't.

Function, not purpose

•I've asked you to prove that life has a purpose at all, and you haven't.

Wow! you can reword the same thing, now this is a broken record

As when in context.. I stated The embryo will become a fully functioning human. Arbotion is artificial interference. This is also over your head i assume?

Subjective opinion, irrelevent. You may believe that bush is not deserving of the rights given humans. It is still murder to kill him, Your opinion means nothing whatsoever.
Sophistry. The only criterion for having human rights is actually being human. Human rights aren't "given"; all humans simply have them. Things that are not human don't have them. Perhaps you'd like big, bold letters.

EMBRYOS ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS, THEREFORE THEY DON'T HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT HUMAN.

Get it? Potential doesn't equal actual. Do you walk by a packet of seeds and go, "Look! Trees!"?

and this is a strawman please look for any post where I claimed it did, bubba

Again see the definition of Strawmen. Your ignorance does not make them strawmen, they remain analogies. You have bumbled onto a point; the two are not analogous. However the reasoning is analogous and therefore stands.
What?! "The two examples aren't analogous, but the reasoning from the flawed analogy is valid, anyway"? What mind-altering drugs did you take to arrive at that conclusion?! If the example isn't analogous, reasoning based on that analogy is invalid by pure definition! Since the analogy depicts a scenario that would not result from the argument, it is an invalid analogy and a strawman, because you are attacking an argument that is not your opponent's.

Incorrect reasoning, and an obiously shaky grasp of my argument.

<snip definition which NecronLord obviously doesn't understand>

Ohh Flame Flame, the last resort of the defeated

Go back, read, try to understand, If you have nothing relevent, then say nothing at all

Nick · Post by **Nick** » 2002-10-06 09:35am

NecronLord wrote:Go back, read, try to understand, If you have nothing relevent, then say nothing at all

Take your own advice.

If you don't have anything to say to justify your utterly flawed analogy, and bizarre claim that "zero brain activity" is an arbitrary line, rather than a distinct and measurable change of state, then why bother saying anything at all?

The reason the "zero brain activity" criterion is justifiable, is because it is not arbitrary. We know that cognition (and hence consciousness) requires brain activity. What is arguable is how much brain activity is required to produce consciousness.

And so, for creatures which are biologically human, we require a total absence of brain activity before we will declare them non-human. If brain function exists, and they are biologically human, then they are accorded some measure of human rights.

If we picked some point along the spectrum of brain activity and said 'now they are human, now they are not" then that would be arbitrary - this is what your examples described, and this is why your attempt to claim them as useful analogies is flawed (and a strawman).

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-10-06 12:06pm

Nick wrote:
NecronLord wrote:Go back, read, try to understand, If you have nothing relevent, then say nothing at all
Take your own advice.

If you don't have anything to say to justify your utterly flawed analogy, and bizarre claim that "zero brain activity" is an arbitrary line, rather than a distinct and measurable change of state, then why bother saying anything at all?

The reason the "zero brain activity" criterion is justifiable, is because it is not arbitrary. We know that cognition (and hence consciousness) requires brain activity. What is arguable is how much brain activity is required to produce consciousness.

And so, for creatures which are biologically human, we require a total absence of brain activity before we will declare them non-human. If brain function exists, and they are biologically human, then they are accorded some measure of human rights.

If we picked some point along the spectrum of brain activity and said 'now they are human, now they are not" then that would be arbitrary - this is what your examples described, and this is why your attempt to claim them as useful analogies is flawed (and a strawman).

You misunderstand, The choice of brain activity is arbitary.

And for crying out loud SHUT UP WITH THIS STRAWMAN NONSENSE. Ever since wong used it every tom dick and harry jumps up and down shouting "Strawman Strawman Strawman" like some maniac cult.

QUIT IT

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-06 01:38pm

No one has anything to say to Talen?