Poll Shows Majority of Americans Believe Abortion ?Almost Always Bad? for Women

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
So the fact that a fetus is brought into existence due to the consciously chosen actions of the mother speaks to the question of whether or not the fetus should be accorded the status of personhood? Your logic is completely laughable, if it can even be called logic without offending anyone here.

BTW a test tube embryo will, given the proper conditions, become an adult human. Therefore accord the test tube embryo with the legal status of personhood, right?

You're having enough problems debating abortion. I don't think you want to get into stem cells.

 

[Whaspe]

So at what point does the fetus become a human being in your opinion aidanjm?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
So the fact that a fetus is brought into existence due to the consciously chosen actions of the mother speaks to the question of whether or not the fetus should be accorded the status of personhood? Your logic is completely laughable, if it can even be called logic without offending anyone here.

BTW a test tube embryo will, given the proper conditions, become an adult human. Therefore accord the test tube embryo with the legal status of personhood, right?

You're having enough problems debating abortion. I don't think you want to get into stem cells.

Ah yes, more evasive, dishonest tactics from PsychoGizard. You say the fact a fetus can grow into an adult human is indicative of it's status as a 'person'. A test tube embryo can also grow into an adult human, given the right conditions. Are test tube embryoes human? Is failing to locate a vacant human womb for a test tube embryo 'murder'?

The factors you've offered in this thread supporting the notion of the fetus as 'person' include:
-it comprises of human cells containing human dna
-the genetic material is different from that of the host organism
-the mother consciously chose to have sex
-the fetus has the potential to grow into an adult human

That's a pretty skimpy argument.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Ah yes, more evasive, dishonest tactics from PsychoGizard. You say the fact a fetus can grow into an adult human is indicative of it's status as a 'person'. A test tube embryo can also grow into an adult human, given the right conditions. Are test tube embryoes human? Is failing to locate a vacant human womb for a test tube embryo 'murder'?

The factors you've offered in this thread supporting the notion of the fetus as 'person' include:
-it comprises of human cells containing human dna
-the genetic material is different from that of the host organism
-the mother consciously chose to have sex
-the fetus has the potential to grow into an adult human

That's a pretty skimpy argument.

It's pretty obvious that a test tube baby is a human, at least to anyone who has read the definition of human as repeated at least a dozen times in this thread alone. The haphazard creation of test tube babies is a ridiculous practice that is part and parcel of the lack of respect for human life in our society.

My argument may be 'skimpy,' but you have no argument. Which is worse?

 

[Whaspe]

Yes, but when does the fetus become a human being, in you opinion?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Ah yes, more evasive, dishonest tactics from PsychoGizard. You say the fact a fetus can grow into an adult human is indicative of it's status as a 'person'. A test tube embryo can also grow into an adult human, given the right conditions. Are test tube embryoes human? Is failing to locate a vacant human womb for a test tube embryo 'murder'?

The factors you've offered in this thread supporting the notion of the fetus as 'person' include:
-it comprises of human cells containing human dna
-the genetic material is different from that of the host organism
-the mother consciously chose to have sex
-the fetus has the potential to grow into an adult human

That's a pretty skimpy argument.

It's pretty obvious that a test tube baby is a human, at least to anyone who has read the definition of human as repeated at least a dozen times in this thread alone. The haphazard creation of test tube babies is a ridiculous practice that is part and parcel of the lack of respect for human life in our society.

My argument may be 'skimpy,' but you have no argument. Which is worse?

More dishonesty from you. No, it isn't obvious that a test tube embryo is human. It is obvious that it is human in the sense it comprises of human cells containing human dna. But it is certainly not self-evident that this microscopic grouping of cells, invisible to the naked eye, is "a human", as in, a human being.

Note PsychoGizard's dishonesty in language. "Human" becomes "a human". Sleazy.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It's pretty obvious that a test tube baby is a human, at least to anyone who has read the definition of human as repeated at least a dozen times in this thread alone. The haphazard creation of test tube babies is a ridiculous practice that is part and parcel of the lack of respect for human life in our society.

i.e., failing to locate a vacant human womb for a test tube embryo is murder, or at the very least manslaughter?

 

[CycloWizard]

Ok chief, to avoid wasting any more time on you, I will put forth a glossary of terms, all from http://www.merriam-webster.com. If you want to discuss this issue, I consider these simple definitions required reading. If you continue to ignore the definition of said terms, I'll ignore anything you say. If you can't wage any argument other than namecalling, I'll ignore you.

Glossary of terms:
Main Entry: 1hu·man
Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&n, 'yü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain, from Middle French, from Latin humanus; akin to Latin homo human being -- more at HOMAGE
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2 : consisting of humans
3 a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature <such an inconsistency is very human -- P. E. More>
- hu·man·ness

Entry: 2human
Function: noun
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs
- hu·man·like

Entry: human being
Function: noun
: HUMAN

Entry: per·son
Pronunciation: 'p&amp;r-s&amp;n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosOpa, plural of prosOpon face, mask -- more at PROSOPOPOEIA
1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : GUISE
3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5 : the personality of a human being : SELF
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
- per·son·hood /-"hud/ noun
- in person : in one's bodily presence

The term 'human' is taxonomic (purely biological) in nature, and is used to define a species. Clearly, one cannot deny that any unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus is inherently human at any stage of development. The characteristic of being human is attributable to the DNA makeup of the tissue. Therefore, calling an unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus human is beyond reproach.

The term 'person' is ontological, describing status granted by society. Thus, the distinction between a human and a person is dictated by the government and is open to debate.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It's pretty obvious that a test tube baby is a human

So a microscopic grouping of cellular material (contained in the test tube) invisible to the naked eye, can reasonably be referred to as a "baby"...??

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It's pretty obvious that a test tube baby is a human

So a microscopic grouping of cellular material (contained in the test tube) invisible to the naked eye, can reasonably be referred to as a "baby"...??

So what is your definition of a baby? When does the change from fetus to human take place?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The term 'human' is taxonomic (purely biological) in nature, and is used to define a species. Clearly, one cannot deny that any unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus is inherently human at any stage of development. The characteristic of being human is attributable to the DNA makeup of the tissue. Therefore, calling an unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus human is beyond reproach.

Yet more sleazy dishonesty from you.

Yes, calling a fetus or embryo "human" is OK. But sliding from "human" (adjective) to "a human" (noun) (as in, a human being) is not beyond reproach. It is a sleazy rhetorical sleight of hand.

Referring to a test tube embryo as a "baby" is equally problematic.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The term 'person' is ontological, describing status granted by society. Thus, the distinction between a human and a person is dictated by the government and is open to debate.

[/quote]

Precisely. So why are you pretending the debate is decided with your sleazy (mis)use of language? Why are you pretending that your position in this debate (re: whether the fetus or embryo is to be considered a person) is the default position? A bit more honesty and humility, and a little less of your disingenuous rhetorical sleights of hand wouldn't go astray.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Precisely. So why are you pretending the debate is decided with your sleazy (mis)use of language? Why are you pretendingf that your position in this debate (re: whether the fetus or embryo is to be considered a person) is the default position? A bite more honesty and humility, and a little less of your disingenuous rhetorical sleight of hand tricks wouldn't go astray.

Sorry, it's hard to start with complete ignorance and build you up to someone who has any idea wtf we're trying to discuss in a matter of fifteen minutes. Maybe if you call me sleazy a few more times it will make up for your complete lack of an argument to this point.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Precisely. So why are you pretending the debate is decided with your sleazy (mis)use of language? Why are you pretendingf that your position in this debate (re: whether the fetus or embryo is to be considered a person) is the default position? A bite more honesty and humility, and a little less of your disingenuous rhetorical sleight of hand tricks wouldn't go astray.

Sorry, it's hard to start with complete ignorance and build you up to someone who has any idea wtf we're trying to discuss in a matter of fifteen minutes. Maybe if you call me sleazy a few more times it will make up for your complete lack of an argument to this point.

We are all aware the fetus or embryo is 'human' in the sense that it comprises of human cells. (I.e., a fetus is 'human' in the same way that an inflamed appendix or a cancerous tumor is 'human'). What is at stake is whether or not the embryo is "a human", as in a human being. I'll say it again: calling a fetus or embryo "human" is OK. But sliding from "human" to "a human" is not beyond reproach. It is a sleazy rhetorical sleight of hand:

"It's pretty obvious that a test tube baby is a human, at least to anyone who has read the definition of human as repeated at least a dozen times in this thread alone." - PsychoGizard

You sliding from an adjective (human - possessing qualities of human-ness) to a noun (human - a human being, i.e., a person) is sleazy at best, dishonest at worst.

I prefer to point out how piss weak your arguments are at this stage, as opposed to presenting any of my own. That is of course a perfectly legitimate approach in debate.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Precisely. So why are you pretending the debate is decided with your sleazy (mis)use of language? Why are you pretendingf that your position in this debate (re: whether the fetus or embryo is to be considered a person) is the default position? A bite more honesty and humility, and a little less of your disingenuous rhetorical sleight of hand tricks wouldn't go astray.

Sorry, it's hard to start with complete ignorance and build you up to someone who has any idea wtf we're trying to discuss in a matter of fifteen minutes. Maybe if you call me sleazy a few more times it will make up for your complete lack of an argument to this point.

We are all aware the fetus or embryo is 'human' in the sense that it comprises of human cells. What is at stake is whether or not the embryo is "a human", as in a human being. I'll say it again: calling a fetus or embryo "human" is OK. But sliding from "human" to "a human" is not beyond reproach. It is a sleazy rhetorical sleight of hand:

"It's pretty obvious that a test tube baby is a human, at least to anyone who has read the definition of human as repeated at least a dozen times in this thread alone." - PsychoGizard

You sliding from an adjective (human - possessing qualities of human-ness) to a noun (human - a human being, i.e., a person) is sleazy at best, dishonest at worst.

I prefer to point out how piss weak your arguments are at this stage, as opposed to presenting any of my own. That is of course a perfectly legitimate approach in debate.

Cop out.

You've done an admirable slicing and dicing everyone else's arguments but fail to support your own. Bluffing? BTW I'm still interested in when you think the change from fetus to "a human" occurs.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
We are all aware the fetus or embryo is 'human' in the sense that it comprises of human cells. (I.e., a fetus is 'human' in the same way that an inflamed appendix or a cancerous tumor is 'human'). What is at stake is whether or not the embryo is "a human", as in a human being. I'll say it again: calling a fetus or embryo "human" is OK. But sliding from "human" to "a human" is not beyond reproach. It is a sleazy rhetorical sleight of hand:

Despite the exact presentation of definitions and repeated explanations describing exactly what the difference is, you still don't get it? Human being != person, human = human being = a human. Either you're completely retarded or playing stupid. In either case, my work here is done. I tried, I really did, but I need at least something to work with.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
We are all aware the fetus or embryo is 'human' in the sense that it comprises of human cells. (I.e., a fetus is 'human' in the same way that an inflamed appendix or a cancerous tumor is 'human'). What is at stake is whether or not the embryo is "a human", as in a human being. I'll say it again: calling a fetus or embryo "human" is OK. But sliding from "human" to "a human" is not beyond reproach. It is a sleazy rhetorical sleight of hand:

Despite the exact presentation of definitions and repeated explanations describing exactly what the difference is, you still don't get it? Human being != person, human = human being = a human. Either you're completely retarded or playing stupid. In either case, my work here is done. I tried, I really did, but I need at least something to work with.

Do you even understand the difference between an adjective and a noun?

"human" (adjective) != human (noun)

I.e., a piece of appendix tissue is human, but it is not *A* human.

And yet you deliberately blur the line between the two:

"It's pretty obvious that a test tube baby** is a human, at least to anyone who has read the definition of human as repeated at least a dozen times in this thread alone." - PsychoGizard

(**test tube embryo)

This is a rhetorical sleight of hand, necessary for you, no doubt, because you have no strong arguments that the fetus or embryo is actually a human (i.e., a human being).


And BTW, "human being" (noun) DOES approximately equal "person" (noun)

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
human = human being = a human.

PsychoGizard's reasoning:

A fetus is *a* human (i.e., a human being, a person), because it IS human (made of human cells)

Similarly an appendix must be *a* human, because it IS human

Right. Keep em coming

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Whaspe

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Precisely. So why are you pretending the debate is decided with your sleazy (mis)use of language? Why are you pretendingf that your position in this debate (re: whether the fetus or embryo is to be considered a person) is the default position? A bite more honesty and humility, and a little less of your disingenuous rhetorical sleight of hand tricks wouldn't go astray.

Sorry, it's hard to start with complete ignorance and build you up to someone who has any idea wtf we're trying to discuss in a matter of fifteen minutes. Maybe if you call me sleazy a few more times it will make up for your complete lack of an argument to this point.

We are all aware the fetus or embryo is 'human' in the sense that it comprises of human cells. What is at stake is whether or not the embryo is "a human", as in a human being. I'll say it again: calling a fetus or embryo "human" is OK. But sliding from "human" to "a human" is not beyond reproach. It is a sleazy rhetorical sleight of hand:

"It's pretty obvious that a test tube baby is a human, at least to anyone who has read the definition of human as repeated at least a dozen times in this thread alone." - PsychoGizard

You sliding from an adjective (human - possessing qualities of human-ness) to a noun (human - a human being, i.e., a person) is sleazy at best, dishonest at worst.

I prefer to point out how piss weak your arguments are at this stage, as opposed to presenting any of my own. That is of course a perfectly legitimate approach in debate.

Cop out.

You've done an admirable slicing and dicing everyone else's arguments but fail to support your own. Bluffing? BTW I'm still interested in when you think the change from fetus to "a human" occurs.

We are animals, the only thing that seperates us from other animals is the left part of our brain. The right side is Analog part, of which animals have two. The left side is the digital side. Now. Our brain isn't nearly finished, even when we are born. In fact, the childs memory only starts after about 3 months outside the uterus.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
PsychoGizard's reasoning:

A fetus is *a* human (i.e., a human being, a person), because it IS human (made of human cells)

Similarly an appendix must be *a* human, because it IS human

Right. Keep em coming

You got what you came for. Peace out.

 

[imported_tss4]

This thread degraded into a shouting match real fast. CycloWizard, I would imagine you feel that aidanjm has been unreasonable and down right hostile. You're probably partially right on that. I think you're arguements are wrong and that you try to pass your opinoins as fact sometimes, but I don't hink sleazy is an apropriate adjective for you. You can see now after having aidanjm berate you for using "human" and "a human" interchangeably that I had every right to be annoyed when you gave me lip over substituting "person" and "human". Sure, there is a difference, but you know what I meant and I know what you're trying to say. So lets cut each other some slack. (And I'm not just directing these comments at you)

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
PsychoGizard's reasoning:

A fetus is *a* human (i.e., a human being, a person), because it IS human (made of human cells)

Similarly an appendix must be *a* human, because it IS human

Right. Keep em coming

You got what you came for. Peace out.

So much easier to just slink away, than acknowledge your errors, right? :disgust:

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: tss4
This thread degraded into a shouting match real fast. CycloWizard, I would imagine you feel that aidanjm has been unreasonable and down right hostile. You're probably partially right on that. I think you're arguements are wrong and that you try to pass your opinoins as fact sometimes, but I don't hink sleazy is an apropriate adjective for you. You can see now after having aidanjm berate you for using "human" and "a human" interchangeably that I had every right to be annoyed when you gave me lip over substituting "person" and "human". Sure, there is a difference, but you know what I meant and I know what you're trying to say. So lets cut each other some slack. (And I'm not just directing these comments at you)

Look, the abortion issue is very much a debate of definitions. Is the fetus a 'person'? Is abortion 'murder'? The person who gets to establish the definitions wins the debate. PsychoGizard is attempting to stack the cards in his favor, by pretending than human (adjective) = human (noun). USE OF LANGAUE IS IMPORTANT TO THIS DEBATE. The consequences of PsychoGizard's disingenuous misuse of language are that an embryo is suddenly not only human, but also "a human", i.e., a human being. If you accept that the fetus is a human being, the debate is over and conservatives win. Liberals need to get off their asses and vigorously contest this kind of abuse of language IMO.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: tss4
This thread degraded into a shouting match real fast. CycloWizard, I would imagine you feel that aidanjm has been unreasonable and down right hostile. You're probably partially right on that. I think you're arguements are wrong and that you try to pass your opinoins as fact sometimes, but I don't hink sleazy is an apropriate adjective for you. You can see now after having aidanjm berate you for using "human" and "a human" interchangeably that I had every right to be annoyed when you gave me lip over substituting "person" and "human". Sure, there is a difference, but you know what I meant and I know what you're trying to say. So lets cut each other some slack. (And I'm not just directing these comments at you)

He gave me lip right after I explained why, in the case of a fetus, there is no difference between human and a human. Were the fetus simply an organ in the mother's body, there would be a distinction. However, it's clearly a separate biological entity and, as such, may be appropriately described as either 'human' or 'a human'.

You can deny anything that I've said in this thread until you're blue in the face. The fact is, I have read the relevant court decisions and discussed the relevant issues with philosophers during ethics classes that I've taken. The problem with your and aidan's arguments is that you're trying to argue the facts rather than my opinions. You, I thought, were at least willing to listen to what I have to say. With aidan, I could paste one sentence in thirty sequential posts and he would still ask me the same question when the sentence I've been posting all along is the answer to that question. If I want to bash my head against the wall, I have four perfectly good walls right here - I don't need to go to the internet.

I can't reiterate facts any more than I have in this thread. If I'm not making my presentation properly then I apologize, but it seems that at least most of the people here are more interested in refuting facts than actually listening to them. I can't teach you anything if you're not willing to learn. On this issue, I really am well informed, moreso than probably any other issue, and it's disturbing to say the least that almost no one on this forum even has a basic grasp of the issues laid out by the USSC in Roe v. Wade, which is the fundamental document in the whole debate. If I tell you what the Court said in that document and you try to refute it, all I can do is throw up my hands because you're essentially arguing with fact, whether it's medical or historical. I don't think I've even posted much of anything of opinion in this entire thread because I am of the opinion that if you're educated on the facts surrounding the issue, you can make your own decision. Instead, most of the people here would rather live in the dark, which is of course their perogative, but don't expect me to repeatedly indulge them with an attempt at rational discussion.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: tss4
This thread degraded into a shouting match real fast. CycloWizard, I would imagine you feel that aidanjm has been unreasonable and down right hostile. You're probably partially right on that. I think you're arguements are wrong and that you try to pass your opinoins as fact sometimes, but I don't hink sleazy is an apropriate adjective for you. You can see now after having aidanjm berate you for using "human" and "a human" interchangeably that I had every right to be annoyed when you gave me lip over substituting "person" and "human". Sure, there is a difference, but you know what I meant and I know what you're trying to say. So lets cut each other some slack. (And I'm not just directing these comments at you)

He gave me lip right after I explained why, in the case of a fetus, there is no difference between human and a human. Were the fetus simply an organ in the mother's body, there would be a distinction. However, it's clearly a separate biological entity and, as such, may be appropriately described as either 'human' or 'a human'.

You can deny anything that I've said in this thread until you're blue in the face. The fact is, I have read the relevant court decisions and discussed the relevant issues with philosophers during ethics classes that I've taken. The problem with your and aidan's arguments is that you're trying to argue the facts rather than my opinions. You, I thought, were at least willing to listen to what I have to say. With aidan, I could paste one sentence in thirty sequential posts and he would still ask me the same question when the sentence I've been posting all along is the answer to that question. If I want to bash my head against the wall, I have four perfectly good walls right here - I don't need to go to the internet.

I can't reiterate facts any more than I have in this thread. If I'm not making my presentation properly then I apologize, but it seems that at least most of the people here are more interested in refuting facts than actually listening to them. I can't teach you anything if you're not willing to learn. On this issue, I really am well informed, moreso than probably any other issue, and it's disturbing to say the least that almost no one on this forum even has a basic grasp of the issues laid out by the USSC in Roe v. Wade, which is the fundamental document in the whole debate. If I tell you what the Court said in that document and you try to refute it, all I can do is throw up my hands because you're essentially arguing with fact, whether it's medical or historical. I don't think I've even posted much of anything of opinion in this entire thread because I am of the opinion that if you're educated on the facts surrounding the issue, you can make your own decision. Instead, most of the people here would rather live in the dark, which is of course their perogative, but don't expect me to repeatedly indulge them with an attempt at rational discussion.

Clearly, I've missed something in your arguement. You claim that we are all argueing the "facts" as you have presented them. And you got these facts from the Roe vs Wade Decision. These facts that we are arguing are basically that the human embryo is a human (therefore you extract that to mean it should have human rights that we all share.) Yet, in Roe vs Wade they allowed for abortion (which is where you claim to have gotten these facts). So how can the very court decision that defends the womans right to have an abortion be the proof that abortion should be illegal.

Also, just to let you know. Never say something to the affect of "Really, I know a lot about this topic.". The instant you have to tell people you know what you're talking about, you're doing piss poor job of conveying your message or you don't as much as you think. I'll trust your claim and assume you're in the former.

One last thing, you have not clearly articulated the issues as laid out by Roe vs Wade. Perhaps you should start there.

 

[imported_tss4]

Also, you're mixing arguements up. You're arguement with aidanjm is not the same as mine. Keep them straight (allthough, I admit that's hard to do when having two similar arguements at the same time). I wasn't argueing the embryo was genetically different or not from the mother and father. I was argueing about cognitive function.