Abortion - your views.

[CassinoChips]

What fallacy would that be?

Generalization.

Am I guessing you've changed your point now?

No, Strawman, I wasn't saying feti are not human. I was simply giving you an example of how your logic is flawed. Taking one aspect of paramecia and applying it to humans, therefore equating science's accepted view of paramecia to humans, is logically unsound.

Thought so.....How's the US economy btw?

Comparatively speaking? Good, actually. And it's funny how when the US economy takes a hit, so does the rest of the world's, is it not? Relevance, Strawman?

especially the fact that your US legislation still keeps fighting over such issue even to this day.

Actually, the legislation doesn't fight over it. The legislation has not been changed since Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court has not overturned that ruling, and every case that has been brought before the Supreme Court regarding abortion has been ruled on in keeping with the Roe v. Wade decision. The legislation has been clear for 30+ years.

 

[Shrouded]

Chips

Generalization.

Hasty generilization am I right?

Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence. It commonly involves basing a broad conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a small group that fails to sufficiently represent the whole population.[1] Its opposite fallacy is called slothful induction, or denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument (i.e. "it was just a coincidence").

Ok, both has cells in them. One is alive and one is not. How is that insufficient to the factt that your conclusion is inconsistent?

No, Strawman,I wasn't saying feti are not human. I was simply giving you an example of how your logic is flawed. Taking one aspect of paramecia and applying it to humans, therefore equating science's accepted view of paramecia to humans, is logically unsound.

I was merely pointing out the inconsistency in your conclusion that an unborn child is not alive when simpler structures such as a bacteria can be deemed living. Like I said, the number of cells does not matter, in all scientific sense a cell is considered "alive" it's not living when the cell is dead.. Why then do we deny that to our own species.

Comparatively speaking? Good, actually. And it's funny how when the US economy takes a hit, so does the rest of the world's, is it not? Relevance, Strawman?

Same reason why you brought up the state of other countries.

There are more than 30 countries where abortion is only legal in cases of rape, mother's health, life and mental health. Those countries are all in South America (heavily Catholic, largely poor, underdeveloped), Africa (alarmingly poor and underdeveloped), and Southwest and South Asia (heavily Islamic, and generally not known to be the most progressive of areas when it comes to women's rights).



And your reason can't possibly be a strawman now is it?

Actually, the legislation doesn't fight over it. The legislation has not been changed since Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court has not overturned that ruling, and every case that has been brought before the Supreme Court regarding abortion has been ruled on in keeping with the Roe v. Wade decision. The legislation has been clear for 30+ years.

Supreme Court =/= Legislation, it's actually the Congress. Now you want to tell me what this bill is all about then?

Human Life Bill HR.227

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood;

(3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING- The terms `human' and `human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of development, created by the process of fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.

 

[Mehaha]

Mehaha

I'm pretty sure the fault was all mine, since I'm the one who needs a "higher level of understanding".

No fault I was misreading what you said and made an assumption...

When you say full human, do you mean a fully develop one?

I mean one that can think complexly and whatnot ETC.

Bun

What gives us the right indeed. Shouldn't I be asking that question?

Nope because it is obvious we give ourselves the right...

Ok, both has cells in them. One is alive and one is not. How is that insufficient to the fcat that your conclusion is insufficient?

I was merely pointing out the inconsistency in your conclusion that an unborn child is not alive when simpler structures such as a bacteria can be deemed living. Like I said, the number of cells does not matter, in all scientific sense a cell is considered "alive" it's not living when the cell is dead.. Why then do we deny that to our own species.

Both living neither human...

Supreme Court =/= Legislation, it's actually the Congress. Now you want to tell me what this bill is all about then?

Human Life Bill HR.227

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood;

(3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING- The terms `human' and `human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of development, created by the process of fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.

The law once said Blacks weren't human and they even possessed all the ingredients to be human... So the laws definition isn't relevant due to its inconsistencies and frequency of change.

 

[Shrouded]

Mehaha

I mean one that can think complexly and whatnot ETC.

*sigh* I remember you saying that a couple pages ago. How about this? Would this work for you?

A baby though they show no signs it has been proven they are capable of complex thought. In fact I remember tunes which my mother played while I was in the womb [Beethoven's flight of the bumble bee 8 1/2 months] now I haven't remembered it perfectly. And I have had to hear it continually since in the womb but it is still there. But by her accounts I have been humming Beethoven's ode to joy since I was old enough to hum.

The law once said Blacks weren't human and they even possessed all the ingredients to be human... So the laws definition isn't relevant due to its inconsistencies and frequency of change.

Score one for the US Legislation.

 

[CassinoChips]

Ok, both has cells in them. One is alive and one is not. How is that insufficient to the factt that your conclusion is inconsistent?

No, one *is* a cell, the other is made up of cells. Ergo, different.

I was merely pointing out the inconsistency in your conclusion that an unborn child is not alive when simpler structures such as a bacteria can be deemed living. Like I said, the number of cells does not matter, in all scientific sense a cell is considered "alive" it's not living when the cell is dead.. Why then do we deny that to our own species.

Because a human being cannot "live" as one cell.

More to the point, I never denied that a zygote is alive.

Same reason why you brought up the state of other countries

And your reason can't possibly be a strawman now is it?

It's not. Poverty drastically affects TFR.

Supreme Court =/= Legislation, it's actually the Congress. Now you want to tell me what this bill is all about then?

Human Life Bill HR.227

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood;

(3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING- The terms `human' and `human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of development, created by the process of fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.

Legislation is finalized once it leaves the legislative branch. The Supreme Court interprets legislation. Thus, what the Supreme Court says, goes. The Supreme Court has never changed its ruling on Roe v. Wade. Therefore, there is no argument in the legislation. The people may be arguing. The legislation is not.

HR 227 has been introduced. That's all. It has not been voted on. It has not been discussed on the floor. It has not been voted on. Right now, it is in the House Judiciary Committee. For all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist. (Ironically, it's like a zygote. And it's probably going to be aborted. There's no way it'll ever get through a (D)-controlled House vote.)

 

[MekanikStik]

I believe that it is the mother's choice as to whether or not they carry the child to birth. Abortion should be suppressed, but not outlawed. Groups should start educating people about alternatives to abortion instead of lobbying to ban it.

On a matter of morality, abortion is simply a matter of free choice, a right all humans enjoy. If it's against your beliefs to kill a fetus, then by all means do not abort. It is unfair to force your spiritual beliefs and practices on others. Although the US was founded on the separation of church and state, the election of politicians and passing of bills is very influenced by Christian beliefs.

 

[Shrouded]

More to the point, I never denied that a zygote is alive.

I'm guessing this was a different CassinnoChips that posted this at page 35:

Nowhere in those foot/endnotes did I see the word "life." Nowhere did it explicitly state "life begins at this point." It only says "development" or a "unique individual" or some other, highly interpretive phrase that does not necessarily equate to making something a viable living entity.

Legislation is finalized once it leaves the legislative branch. The Supreme Court interprets legislation. Thus, what the Supreme Court says, goes. The Supreme Court has never changed its ruling on Roe v. Wade. Therefore, there is no argument in the legislation. The people may be arguing. The legislation is not.

HR 227 has been introduced. That's all. It has not been voted on. It has not been discussed on the floor. It has not been voted on. Right now, it is in the House Judiciary Committee. For all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist. (Ironically, it's like a zygote. And it's probably going to be aborted. There's no way it'll ever get through a (D)-controlled House vote.)

Yes, the House Judiciary Committee is made up of legislative branch, not the Judiciary branch if that's what your implying:

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_the_Judiciary

U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, or (more commonly) the House Judiciary Committee, is a standing committee of the United States House of Representatives. It is charged with overseeing the administration of justice within the federal courts, administrative agencies and Federal law enforcement entities. The Judiciary Committee is also the committee responsible for impeachments of federal officials. Because of the legal nature of its oversight, committee members usually have a legal background, but it is not required.

That was my point.

 

[Mehaha]

Mehaha



*sigh* I remember you saying that a couple pages ago. How about this? Would this work for you?

A baby though they show no signs it has been proven they are capable of complex thought. In fact I remember tunes which my mother played while I was in the womb [Beethoven's flight of the bumble bee 8 1/2 months] now I haven't remembered it perfectly. And I have had to hear it continually since in the womb but it is still there. But by her accounts I have been humming Beethoven's ode to joy since I was old enough to hum.

8 1/2 month... The time of Complex though like I have been saying AROUND THE TIME OF NEWBORN... If you quote me for a debate don't make a quote that proves me right at least...

Score one for the US Legislation.

Score one for you... Faster than the speed of dumb slower than the speed of dumb. Of course black people are human dumb shit.

 

[jasminepotts]

I personally think that anything that has human genetics can be classed as something human.

 

[Shrouded]

Score one for you... Faster than the speed of dumb slower than the speed of dumb. Of course black people are human dumb shit.

You do know I was agreeing with you right? In my debate with Chips, I was criticising the US Legislative Branch.

 

[CassinoChips]

I'm guessing this was a different CassinnoChips that posted this at page 35:

Nowhere in those foot/endnotes did I see the word "life." Nowhere did it explicitly state "life begins at this point." It only says "development" or a "unique individual" or some other, highly interpretive phrase that does not necessarily equate to making something a viable living entity.

Show me where that says "CassinoChips doesn't think a zygote is alive." All I said was that your source does not explicitly state "This is when life begins."

Yes, the House Judiciary Committee is made up of legislative branch, not the Judiciary branch if that's what your implying:

I wasn't implying anything. I was explicitly stating that the laws that Roe v. Wade interpreted have not changed, nor has the interpretation of those laws. HR 227 has been introduced to the House, which is the first step to becoming a law. But it hasn't even been discussed on the House floor. So to say there's even an argument about it is an incorrect assumption.

 

[Shrouded]

Show me where that says "CassinoChips doesn't think a zygote is alive." All I said was that your source does not explicitly state "This is when life begins."

(.....)

Oookkkkaaaayy then, we both agree that the child is alive and I'm pretty sure there's no argument that the child is human....Anything else that you'd like to add?

I wasn't implying anything. I was explicitly stating that the laws that Roe v. Wade interpreted have not changed, nor has the interpretation of those laws. HR 227 has been introduced to the House, which is the first step to becoming a law. But it hasn't even been discussed on the House floor. So to say there's even an argument about it is an incorrect assumption.

Is it better if I just say that just fact that the bill had been introduced is in direct conflict of the Roe V Wade ruling? That there are "disagreements" in the house of legislation simply because of that bill?

 

[Mehaha]

You do know I was agreeing with you right? In my debate with Chips, I was criticising the US Legislative Branch.

Sorry... I didn't think of that.

 

[CassinoChips]

Oookkkkaaaayy then, we both agree that the child is alive and I'm pretty sure there's no argument that the child is human....Anything else that you'd like to add?

It's not a child. If we want to play the definitions game, a human embryo is only considered a "child" when it reaches the fetal stage, meaning it has recognizable human body structures. Thus, a zygote is not a child.

Is it better if I just say that just fact that the bill had been introduced is in direct conflict of the Roe V Wade ruling? That there are "disagreements" in the house of legislation simply because of that bill?

No, it's not better.

It's in Committee. Two things will happen: either they'll say "we should discuss this on the floor," or they'll throw it out. The second is much more likely to happen because of the Constitutionality issues it would raise and the almost certain Supreme Court case that would follow. And again, in a (D)-controlled House, it would likely never pass.

If it ever reaches the House floor, then there are "disagreements." Right now, it's just a thought.

 

[Mehaha]

(.....)

Oookkkkaaaayy then, we both agree that the child is alive and I'm pretty sure there's no argument that the child is human....Anything else that you'd like to add?

I don't believe it's human... That is something to add...

 

[Shrouded]

Chips

It's not a child. If we want to play the definitions game, a human embryo is only considered a "child" when it reaches the fetal stage, meaning it has recognizable human body structures. Thus, a zygote is not a child.

Anyone ever tell you how nitpicky you are? I just feel like calling them child/unborn child. I know it's not technically right, but I like to treat them like human beings. Is that all right with you?

No, it's not better.

It's in Committee. Two things will happen: either they'll say "we should discuss this on the floor," or they'll throw it out. The second is much more likely to happen because of the Constitutionality issues it would raise and the almost certain Supreme Court case that would follow. And again, in a (D)-controlled House, it would likely never pass.

If it ever reaches the House floor, then there are "disagreements." Right now, it's just a thought.

Ok, I'm not making assumptions on what's going to happen. That's in the future, I'm not going that far yet. But the bill is in direct conflict with the Roe V. Wade ruling. Someone obviously introduced it in the house, someone who disagrees......Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'll be taking a wild guess that it's a Republican.

Am I warm here?

Mehaha

Sorry... I didn't think of that.

That's cool...

 

[CassinoChips]

Anyone ever tell you how nitpicky you are? I just feel like calling them child/unborn child. I know it's not technically right, but I like to treat them like human beings. Is that all right with you?

Nitpicky? I prefer precise. But, regardless, it's an important distinction. Child implies ownership and an emotional bond. But, if you're all right with being incorrect, it's all right with me.

Someone obviously introduced it in the house, someone who disagrees......Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'll be taking a wild guess that it's a Republican.

Am I warm here?

In the words of the late Ed McMahon, YOU ARE CORRECT, SAH!! Republican from Georgia, coincidentally the first state whose abortion laws were struck down by Roe v. Wade.

 

[Shrouded]

Nitpicky? I prefer precise. But, regardless, it's an important distinction. Child implies ownership and an emotional bond. But, if you're all right with being incorrect, it's all right with me.

.....and I have no problem with you going by implications.Anything else to add?

In the words of the late Ed McMahon, YOU ARE CORRECT, SAH!! Republican from Georgia, coincidentally the first state whose abortion laws were struck down by Roe v. Wade.

So am I wrong when I say that Republicans and Democrats are just one big whole happy bipartisan family when it comes to abortion?

 

[CassinoChips]

So am I wrong when I say that Republicans and Democrats are just one big whole happy bipartisan family when it comes to abortion?

Very wrong. You couldn't be more wrong.

Almost exclusively, if you are (R), you are anti-abortion. If you are (D), you are pro-choice. Currently, the HoR, the Senate, the Presidency, and the SCotUS are all (D)-controlled. So a bill introduced by a (R) that seeks to change abortion law is virtually dead in the water.

 

[Shrouded]

Almost exclusively, if you are (R), you are anti-abortion. If you are (D), you are pro-choice.

So, there's a disagreement in the Legislative Branch huh?