Do you find these billboards offensive?

Delirium

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Yea that's it.

thanks for the clarification.

philologos wrote: »

koth: read the post. The poster said that the fertilized egg is not a human life. That isn't true.

the poster has clarified their post, would you now respond to my original question?

koth wrote: »

the poster didn't say it wasn't human life, they used the term human being. Are you saying an embryo is a human being?

philologos

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

The logical ones know that it is a fertilised egg which may have the potential to become a live human under the right conditions. The religious nut jobs believe that god put the child inside mammy's tummy... I am not interested in debating science or real life issues with that bunch.

You're denying its a human life here.

Biologically - it is human. It is formed of human biological material namely the fusion of an ova and a sperm.

Biologically - it is alive. Insofar as it is exhibiting growth and development in the womb.

This is the dishonesty of the pro-choice argument. The reality is, there is a life in the womb.

I wonder if there are pro-choice people who would tell me why their position advocates killing other human lives as a matter of mere choice is justified?

koth: The debate about whether or not the foetus is a human being is philosophical. The debate as to whether or not it is a human life, is a matter of biological fact.

28064212

philologos wrote: »

You're denying its a human life here.

Twins can form up to 16 days after conception. So is it a life? Or is it two lives?

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

koth: The debate about whether or not the foetus is a human being is philosophical. The debate as to whether or not it is a human life, is a matter of biological fact.

I agree the question is a philosophical one, that's why I was asking the question. People have differing opinions with regards to the question, so I asked for your opinion.

If a human being doesn't exist, how can abortion be murder?

philologos

28064212 wrote: »

Twins can form up to 16 days after conception. So is it a life? Or is it two lives?

One life, becomes two lives. Not that difficult to account for

koth: Killing a human life in and of itself is murder. Philosophically, I believe a human life is also a human being. The reality is that the pro-choice side of the argument willingly deny biological fact.

Ickle Magoo

philologos wrote: »

I wonder if there are pro-choice people who would tell me why their position advocates killing other human lives as a matter of mere choice is justified?

Puts hand up.

In a nut-shell - because not all life is considered equal. That's why the morning after pill is allowed, or contraceptives which prevent implantation, make the uterus hostile and make it impossible for this human life you speak of to survive are commonly used.

Abortion, certainly early term abortion is - to many - merely a continuation of the same school of thought that makes it perfectly socially acceptable for women to take the pill or have IUD's, or indeed get the morning-after pill OTC. It gets murkier and murkier as the pregnancy gets closer to term but considering a fertilised egg as not being a sacred human life is hardly news in this day and age.

28064212

philologos wrote: »

One life, becomes two lives. Not that difficult to account for

So a human life can become two lives, without conception occuring? When does this second life start?

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

koth: Killing a human life in and of itself is murder. Philosophically, I believe a human life is also a human being. The reality is that the pro-choice side of the argument willingly deny biological fact.

Thanks for explaining what you consider to be a human being.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being, so abortion up to a point can't be murder.

philologos

I'd still regard the MAP as an abortifacient, or anything that prevents implantation for that matter.

Thanks for conceding that much though. It breaks through a lot of the dishonesty of fumbling around whether or not a human life is formed at conception.

Why do you think the human life that has formed in the womb is not as valid as other human life I guess is the next question?

Ickle Magoo

philologos wrote: »

Why do you think the human life that has formed in the womb is not as valid as other human life I guess is the next question?

It's not so much I think a zygote/embryo/foetus invalid - as I consider the alternative of exerting a hideously unacceptable level of control over women's reproduction and enforced pregnancy a greater evil than destroying non-sentient human potential.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's not so much I think a zygote/embryo/foetus invalid - as I consider the alternative of exerting a hideously unacceptable level of control over women's reproduction and enforced pregnancy a greater evil than destroying non-sentient human potential.

When you mention reproduction and enforced pregnancy would you concede that there is a large degree of choice long before the point of pregnancy?

Also, just as a general question, would I be correct in saying that you regard the conjugal rights of individuals to supersede the right to life itself?

Finally, by non sentient human potential, I take it by saying this you still accept that it is nonetheless a human life?

Genuinely curious, and much thanks for helping us progress this a little further.

steddyeddy

I think where I would disagree with some pro abortion people is that all reasons for abortion are in most cases (apart from rape, health concerns) largely equal. Abortion for reasons of gender, race, sexual orientation eye color should be equal if according to some abortionists the embryo is a bunch of cells.

Ickle Magoo

philologos wrote: »

When you mention reproduction and enforced pregnancy would you concede that there is a large degree of choice long before the point of pregnancy?

Not necessarily - even with the best will in the world, contraceptives fail. Even when they don't fail - I am vehemently against any woman who doesn't want to be pregnant being forced to carry the pregnancy to term for the "sin" of daring to engage in an activity by which pregnancy may result. There are also the more obvious arguments about pregnancy resulting from rape in which there is very little "choice".

philologos wrote: »

Also, just as a general question, would I be correct in saying that you regard the conjugal rights of individuals to supersede the right to life itself?

Correct. It strikes me as completely illogical to hold the right of potential life above that of actual life.

philologos wrote: »

Finally, by non sentient human potential, I take it by saying this you still accept that it is nonetheless a human life?

Me, I think it potential human life - a step up from sperm or egg but a step down from a 28wk old foetus. There is an obvious desperation to propagate this idea everything from zygote onwards is human life, because from that assumed position it is easier to espouse the usual adages about human life being sacred and anything that prevents the natural progression of implantation and pregnancy as murder while avoiding any accusation of hyperbole. There are no black and white definitions; as I know you are aware both dictionary and legal definitions differ from state to state, country to country.

As the foetus becomes more sentient and more able to survive independently there is clearly a greater argument to grant foetus' equal status to babies capable of living outside the womb - and I agree with that. I think the whole "human life" semantics are largely to deflect from the issue of whether enforced pregnancies or third parties dictating every aspect of reproductive choices women are "allowed to have" is acceptable in modern society.

Piste

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Puts hand up.

In a nut-shell - because not all life is considered equal. That's why the morning after pill is allowed, or contraceptives which prevent implantation, make the uterus hostile and make it impossible for this human life you speak of to survive are commonly used.

Abortion, certainly early term abortion is - to many - merely a continuation of the same school of thought that makes it perfectly socially acceptable for women to take the pill or have IUD's, or indeed get the morning-after pill OTC. It gets murkier and murkier as the pregnancy gets closer to term but considering a fertilised egg as not being a sacred human life is hardly news in this day and age.

I agree so much with this. I think the dichotomy between "alive and sacred" and "not alive and not sacred" is a false one. I think there is an inbetween state where the embryo/foetus is technically alive but that life does not carry the same value or weight as a baby capable of surviving independently outside the womb. Where that line is drawn is murky and will be somewhat arbitrary- as all lines tend to be. Because this life is then less valuable than a baby or older, the right of the woman to bodily autonomy supercedes it.

steddyeddy

Piste wrote: »

I agree so much with this. I think the dichotomy between "alive and sacred" and "not alive and not sacred" is a false one. I think there is an inbetween state where the embryo/foetus is technically alive but that life does not carry the same value or weight as a baby capable of surviving independently outside the womb. Where that line is drawn is murky and will be somewhat arbitrary- as all lines tend to be. Because this life is then less valuable than a baby or older, the right of the woman to bodily autonomy supercedes it.

I agree but I think that referring to the embryo as a bunch of cells is untasteful (although accurate).

philologos

Ah Ickle Magoo - you told me that you thought that there was a human life in the womb from conception and now you've back tracked to saying it is a "potential human life".

Either it is biologically a human life, or it isn't. Which is it? - Also it's not semantics to point out that biologically from conception a human life exists in the womb, that's just what's factual.

Ickle Magoo

philologos wrote: »

Ah Ickle Magoo - you told me that you thought that there was a human life in the womb from conception and now you've back tracked to saying it is a "potential human life".

Either it is biologically a human life, or it isn't. Which is it? - Also it's not semantics to point out that biologically from conception a human life exists in the womb.

Lol, I think in your desperation to spring that age-old ambush you missed the part where I clearly state "that YOU speak of"...I was merely acknowledging your term, I certainly wasn't agreeing with it.

But yes, let the semantic roundabout go on - lest we have to discuss forcing women to be incubators against their will and how you propose to do that.

steddyeddy

In fairness can someone give me a defintion of human?

philologos

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree but I think that referring to the embryo as a bunch of cells is untasteful (although accurate).

What some don't realise is that they are "just a bunch of cells" too. Just a few years further down the line.

The development argument is where it can get a bit silly.

Ultimately, that is an arbitrary criteria. I could say that unless someone cannot cycle up Mt. Snowdon on a unicycle in the height of winter while juggling 7241 bananas and playing the violin that that person is less worthy of life.

Yet, one can very clearly see that that criteria is just a personal one, it has nothing to do with the actual fact of the matter - namely that there is a human life in the womb.

Ickle Magoo: Then we're back to the inherent dishonesty of the debate from the pro-choice side, denying biological reality.

wendell borton

I find billiards really offensive two men in waistcoats hitting their balls with sticks to get them in the sack, realy rubs me the wrong way.

steddyeddy

philologos wrote: »

What some don't realise is that they are "just a bunch of cells" too. Just a few years further down the line.

The development argument is where it can get a bit silly.

Ultimately, that is an arbitrary criteria. I could say that unless someone cannot cycle up Mt. Snowdon on a unicycle in the height of winter while juggling 7241 bananas and playing the violin that that person is less worthy of life.

Yet, one can very clearly see that that criteria is just a personal one, it has nothing to do with the actual fact of the matter - namely that there is a human life in the womb.

Ickle Magoo: Then we're back to the inherent dishonesty of the debate from the pro-choice side, denying biological reality.

I could take any human cell and make change it into something similar to an embyonic cell.

Ickle Magoo

philologos wrote: »

Ickle Magoo: Then we're back to the inherent dishonesty of the debate from the pro-choice side, denying biological reality.

It's only biological reality if we all assume your position, terminology and premise - which is surely the definition of intellectual dishonesty?

The argument boils down to who has more rights, the zygote/embryo/foetus or the owner of the womb in which it resides. If you think a woman has or should have less rights than that which resides in her womb then just come out and say that. If you want every women in the world to be banned from using the pill, or IUDs or the MAP or even having sex unless for means of procreation then just come out and state that...or stop accusing others of dishonesty.

EdanHewittt

Obvious Photoshopped Billboard.

Troll-bait Thread is Obvious.

Send OP to Coventry:

https://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php/116168-Tachy-Goes-to-Coventry

Ickle Magoo

EdanHewittt wrote: »

Obvious Photoshopped Billboard.

Troll-bait Thread is Obvious.

You'd better let the Youth Defence know - they seem to be under the impression it's one of a set they've been promoting...

HERE

philologos

Ickle Magoo: Biological fact is biological fact. It doesn't matter about what my opinion is. It is factual that a human life is formed at conception. If we can't even accept what is true or what is actually real, and if we're just willing to fudge the truth for our own convenience, then there's not much point in even having this debate is there?

EdanHewittt

Ah the Good Oul Fashioned beaten to death Abortion thread. A classic topic to have on any bored Saturday afternoon.

When the blogger prone lunatic fringe come out of the woodwork and give Tibetan Book of the Dead-like exegesis rants on the subject, and quote the best thinkers of our time on the subject ad verbatim.

░░░█░░░░░░▄██▀▄▄░░░░░▄▄▄░░​░█
░▄▀▒▄▄▄▒░█▀▀▀▀▄▄█░░░██▄▄█░​░░█
█░▒█▒▄░▀▄▄▄▀░░░░░░░░█░░░▒▒​▒▒▒█
█░▒█░█▀▄▄░░░░░█▀░░░░▀▄░░▄▀​▀▀▄▒█
░█░▀▄░█▄░█▀▄▄░▀░▀▀░▄▄▀░░░░​█░░█
░░█░░░▀▄▀█▄▄░█▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▀▀█▀█​█░█
░░█░░░░██░░▀█▄▄▄█▄▄█▄████░​█
░░░█░░░░▀▀▄░█░░░█░█▀██████​░█
░░░░▀▄░░░░░▀▀▄▄▄█▄█▄█▄█▄▀░​░█
░░░░░░▀▄▄░▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░▒░​░░█
░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄​▄▀

Ickle Magoo

philologos wrote: »

Ickle Magoo: Biological fact is biological fact. It doesn't matter about what my opinion is. It is factual that a human life is formed at conception. If we can't even accept what is true or what is actually real, and if we're just willing to fudge the truth for our own convenience, then there's not much point in even having this debate is there?

When dealing with the abortion issue, suggesting "human life" is an unambiguous, universally accepted term for everything post-zygote is, frankly, laughable. If you want to see some prime fudge for convenience you got it right there. Otherwise every woman taking the pill, with an IUD or taking the MAP would currently be up on murder charges.

Let's be frank, it's just more of the same pushing the argument down your favourite semantic cul-de-sac so you don't have to deal with the rather enormous elephant in your argument of championing enforced pregnancy and unilaterally banning women from all contraceptives you, personally, take moral issue with.

Shenshen

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Lol, I think in your desperation to spring that age-old ambush you missed the part where I clearly state "that YOU speak of"...I was merely acknowledging your term, I certainly wasn't agreeing with it.

But yes, let the semantic roundabout go on - lest we have to discuss forcing women to be incubators against their will and how you propose to do that.

I don't see what difference it would make either way : no living person (passport, driving license, leaving cert, any proof of being human you can think of or make up) has the right to use another's body against their consent.
Nobody can be forced to so much as give blood, it has to be done voluntarily.
Nobody can even use a corpse to help another person live if the dead didn't explicitly mad it clear they would consent.
Yet women have fewer rights to their own bodies than a corpse does.

Zulu

28064212 wrote: »

Twins can form up to 16 days after conception. So is it a life? Or is it two lives?

The important point is: it's not NO lives.

28064212

Zulu wrote: »

The important point is: it's not NO lives.

So if a fertilised egg is "aborted" before it could potentially have become two lives, is that the ending of one life or two? If I can point back to my conception and say "yep, that's the official point at which I became a person", what do twins do?