Real simple:

Noah's Hammer · Jan 25, 2007

1069 said:
Yes, but that is because homosexuals did not openly marry at the time the founding patriarchs were alive; if they had, the patriarchs probably would've been compelled to express an opinion one way or the other.
Abortion has always gone on, and abortifacient patent medicines were sold openly in America from the time of the establishment of the original 13 colonies, onward.

What were the names of those drugs?

How openly did women practice abortion?

Roberdorus · Jan 25, 2007

OKgrannie said:
Neither a blastocyte, a zygote, an embryo, nor a fetus is a "child." (Other than in colloquial usage, that is.)

I disagree. I think the unborn is a child, it's simply at an earlier developmental stage than, say, a born child.

When the immorality of one person harms another, it destroys order in society.

Agreed.

Abortion doesn't destroy order in society,

Does too.

it isn't immoral,

Uh-huh!!

and a fetus is not "another" person.

Yeah, yeah it is so.

You see, it's not very helpful to a debate forum to say something like "abortion isn't immoral" without presenting an argument to support that statement.

R.v.W. doesn't bestow power upon big government, quite the contrary, it restores the appropriate power to a pregnant woman, an individual. Government, neither the state nor the feds, doesn't properly have the authority to regulate pregnancy. If government has the power to forbid abortion, it surely has the power to require it.

I don't think it is an appropriate power, because I don't think it's within a woman's rights to terminate a pregnancy. You do. And since the Constitution says nothing about abortion, it should be left to the moral judgment of the American people and their elected representatives.
You should get a say and I should get a say. It shouldn't be decided by nine people. That's the beauty of living in a democracy. Right?

OKgrannie · Jan 25, 2007

Noah's Hammer said:
What were the names of those drugs?

How openly did women practice abortion?

As you can see in this article, women practiced abortion fairly openly when abortion was illegal. There is no reason to think that they would have been less open when it was legal.

When Abortion Was a Crime

"The evidence shows that many American women and their friends and family accepted abortions. The widespread acceptance of abortion, expressed in word and deed during the era of its illegality, suggests the persistence of a popular ethic that differed from that of the law and the official views of medicine and religion. ...

Further evidence of early-twentieth-century women's self-reliance in performing abortions is recorded in business transactions. While some women creatively used whatever could be found around the house to induce abortions, others purchased abortifacients or other implements
― 44 ―
at a commercial institution located in their own neighborhoods and throughout the city—the drugstore. By 1889, there were over one thousand druggists in Chicago.[109] The pharmacist, not the doctor, was often the first health professional consulted by the sick or by women caring for ill family members. Pharmacists offered on-the-spot diagnoses and suggested remedies;[110] some advised their patrons on abortion methods. Druggists sold the rubber catheters, slippery elm, and orange sticks women used to induce their own miscarriages, as well as "Chichester's Diamond Brand Pills" and "Pennyroyal pills" to induce abortions.[111] One annoyed doctor wrote to the AMA after having been called late one evening to care for a woman who had a "severe attack of 'Cramps.'" He sent along a box of "Tansy and Pennyroyal Compound Pills" that a Detroit druggist had sold his patient; the druggist had "assured her that it would produce an abortion."[112]"

OKgrannie · Jan 25, 2007

Roberdorus said:
I disagree. I think the unborn is a child, it's simply at an earlier developmental stage than, say, a born child...

You see, it's not very helpful to a debate forum to say something like "abortion isn't immoral" without presenting an argument to support that statement. ?

OK, abortion isn't immoral because it doesn't effect another "person". If the "unborn" is a child at an earlier stage of development than a born child, is the "unconceived" (i.e. sperm and egg) a child at an even earlier stage of development?

Roberdorus said:
I don't think it is an appropriate power, because I don't think it's within a woman's rights to terminate a pregnancy. You do. And since the Constitution says nothing about abortion, it should be left to the moral judgment of the American people and their elected representatives.
You should get a say and I should get a say. It shouldn't be decided by nine people. That's the beauty of living in a democracy. Right?

You get a say over every pregnancy that effects YOUR body, I get a say over those that effect MY body. Period. You're right, it shouldn't be decided by nine people....only one women at a time needs to decide. That IS leaving it to the moral judgement of the American people, that is, the people involved, who are the only ones qualified to make such a judgement. If you read my link above, you will note that legislation failed to stop abortion or even slow it down, women will make the decision regardless, so abortion should remain safe and legal.

1069 · Jan 25, 2007

What were the names of those drugs?

Silphium (an herb in the parsley family; now extinct).
Patent abortifacient medicines primarily contained derivatives and distillations of Black cohosh, Pennyroyal, Tansy, Savin, Mugwort and Common Rue.
Would you like the names of some specific patent medicines?

Eve's herbs: A history of Contraception and Abortion in the West
(Must be a Journal or American Medical Assoc. subscriber to view full text).

Noah's Hammer said:
How openly did women practice abortion?

Depends on the source.

Abortion in early America.

abortion in early america, (Book Notes: The Angel of Ashland)

(Two Conflicting) Histories of Abortion

NAF's History of abortion

Abortion in America (subscribers only)

Wiki's history of Abortion
(note: I don't consider Wiki a credible source, but there are some links to good informational sites at the bottom of this article, where the information in the article can be referenced for accuracy).

talloulou · Jan 25, 2007

jallman said:
And here we go with the histrionic hissy fit again. Not to mention the constant assertion of the lie that the ZEF is a baby when it clearly is not. It is really hard not to maintain a genuine air of superiority when dealing with most pro-liars because your tactics and hysterics are hard to take seriously, let alone respect.

Personhood is not something that can be revoked. Once elevated to personhood status, there is no revocation. That is why we offer care to the elderly and maintain the well-being of those in vegetative states, unless the direct otherwise prior to that condition.

This isn't my standard, despite your need to undermine my argument through vilification...another hysterical pro-lie tactic. If you have a problem with this standard, perhaps instead of caterwauling to me about it, you should be taking it up with the SCOTUS. However, you are more than free to keep amusing me by screeching like a scalded cat. :mrgreen:

What the hell is a ZEF? Is that the newest dehumanizing lingo? Hmm...will work on acronym to dehumanize prochoicers. How about:

KKK kooks killing kids

or

WTF women terminating fetuses

So which would you all prefer to be called KKKs or WTFs?

talloulou · Jan 25, 2007

OKgrannie said:
OK, abortion isn't immoral because it doesn't effect another "person". If the "unborn" is a child at an earlier stage of development than a born child, is the "unconceived" (i.e. sperm and egg) a child at an even earlier stage of development?

No cause as I've previously mentioned to all you WTF's neither sperm or eggs are organisms.

Noah's Hammer · Jan 25, 2007

OKgrannie said:
As you can see in this article, women practiced abortion fairly openly when abortion was illegal. There is no reason to think that they would have been less open when it was legal.

When Abortion Was a Crime

"The evidence shows that many American women and their friends and family accepted abortions. The widespread acceptance of abortion, expressed in word and deed during the era of its illegality, suggests the persistence of a popular ethic that differed from that of the law and the official views of medicine and religion. ...

Further evidence of early-twentieth-century women's self-reliance in performing abortions is recorded in business transactions. While some women creatively used whatever could be found around the house to induce abortions, others purchased abortifacients or other implements
― 44 ―
at a commercial institution located in their own neighborhoods and throughout the city—the drugstore. By 1889, there were over one thousand druggists in Chicago.[109] The pharmacist, not the doctor, was often the first health professional consulted by the sick or by women caring for ill family members. Pharmacists offered on-the-spot diagnoses and suggested remedies;[110] some advised their patrons on abortion methods. Druggists sold the rubber catheters, slippery elm, and orange sticks women used to induce their own miscarriages, as well as "Chichester's Diamond Brand Pills" and "Pennyroyal pills" to induce abortions.[111] One annoyed doctor wrote to the AMA after having been called late one evening to care for a woman who had a "severe attack of 'Cramps.'" He sent along a box of "Tansy and Pennyroyal Compound Pills" that a Detroit druggist had sold his patient; the druggist had "assured her that it would produce an abortion."[112]"

This whole argument is moot and I'll clearly tell you why.

We were talking about why the founding fathers did not condemn the slaughter of innocent children in the womb.

I called you on the carpet to cite your sources. You presented this article that talks about what abortions occured in THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY.

The founding fathers wrote the constitution in the EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

You seem to me to be more interested in winning a debate than even beginning to consider the possibility that taking the life of that unborn is murder.

Noah's Hammer · Jan 26, 2007

Noah's Hammer said:
per•son•hood

per•son•hood [púrs’n hd]
n
human state: the state of being human

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

So a fetus is not a human until it reaches "personhood". Personhood is the state of being human. Hmmm...

Is that really your argument?

What law says that personhood cannot be revoked? Where did you get that from? Is it the same law that states that "personhood" cannot be prevented?

Still pushing the "personhood" argument or are you now ready to listen to reason?

Roberdorus · Jan 26, 2007

OKgrannie said:
OK, abortion isn't immoral because it doesn't effect another "person".

Okay, well I still don't have much to go on. Perhaps you can explain WHY you don't think abortion affects another person?

If the "unborn" is a child at an earlier stage of development than a born child, is the "unconceived" (i.e. sperm and egg) a child at an even earlier stage of development?

No, because sperm cells and egg cells are not at a human stage of development at all. See Human development (biology)
However, when the sperm cell and egg cell unite, they form a completely distinct and unique human being that enters its first developmental stage (zygote).

You get a say over every pregnancy that effects YOUR body, I get a say over those that effect MY body. Period.

Okay, but to what extent do you have a say? You do not have complete and arbitrary control over something simply because it "affects you". You don't get to kill your dentist because he has his hand inside your mouth and therefore "affects your body".

You're right, it shouldn't be decided by nine people....only one women at a time needs to decide. That IS leaving it to the moral judgement of the American people, that is, the people involved, who are the only ones qualified to make such a judgement.

Grannie? What exactly scares you about democracy? I mean, like you said, "if it didn't pass in South Dakota, it won't pass anywhere". So why do you have this huge problem with giving the PEOPLE a chance to decide whether or not abortion is allowable?

If you read my link above, you will note that legislation failed to stop abortion or even slow it down, women will make the decision regardless, so abortion should remain safe and legal.

That's a really weak justification for abortion. Sure, some women would probably do it anyway-- so what?? Should we make rape "safe and legal" just because people are going to do it anyway? No. That's not the way things work in America.

Roberdorus · Jan 26, 2007

talloulou said:
What the hell is a ZEF? Is that the newest dehumanizing lingo? Hmm...will work on acronym to dehumanize prochoicers. How about:

KKK kooks killing kids

or

WTF women terminating fetuses

So which would you all prefer to be called KKKs or WTFs?

:2funny:

I personally like KKK, but WTF works for me too.

Noah's Hammer · Jan 26, 2007

Grannie said:
"You're right, it shouldn't be decided by nine people....only one women at a time needs to decide. That IS leaving it to the moral judgement of the American people, that is, the people involved, who are the only ones qualified to make such a judgement."

This is not even a reasonable argument. Then let's let murderers who want to kill people kill whoever they like. Let's not legislate against them. Leave it to the moral judgement of the American people. Freedom does not give you the right to do whatever you want to do.

And it's not about your body at all. It's about that innocent baby's body inside of you. It has rights. It is selfish of you to demand your rights over the baby's rights. Infact it ought to have the most rights seeing as how it is helpless and innocent. What you did to place it there may corrupt your chances of being innocent of any irresponsibility and wrong doing but it has done nothing to corrupt its innocence.

The difference between prolifers and proabortionists is prolifers care about innocent babies. Proabortionists care only about themselves and there convenience

Monkey Mind · Jan 26, 2007

Monkey Mind said:
Humans are persons, regardless of developmental stage.

FutureIncoming said:
FALSE. Because the U.S. Constitution requires counting all persons every decade, and none of them, including the first in 1790, only three years after the Constitution was written, ever counted unborn humans... etc.

You're getting sloppy now. You can't cite the US Census as the arbiter of personhood, because the Census would include a newborn baby.. which you in your infinite wisdom have decreed is not a person. Or would you now admit that newborns are in fact people? And, if a newborn is a person then by what stretch of the imagination can that same newborn not still be a person 5 minutes before birth?

FutureIncoming said:
You were the one that mentioned "tradition". I merely wrote that according to tradition, those entities I mentioned were at one time considered to be every bit as real as humans--and persons, too. Which makes a hash of the notion that "person" must equal "human".

THE POINT, therefore, is that "person" must have a more generic definition than what you wrote. It must encompass all sorts of entities, while nevertheless excluding mere animals.

No, it mustn't. A person is a person, which is a living human. Other entities may have person-like qualities but that doesn't make them persons. As I said before I won't discuss mythical entities here. The thread is cumbersome enough as it is. Start a new thread, then lets both try to stay on topic in that one. It could be interesting.

Now you are lying outright, since I have never made any attempt whatsoever to dehumanize any human of any developmental stage.

Au contraire, you are the one spouting falsehoods. In this thread and others you attempt to dehumanize fetuses and infants by claiming they are not persons. You say that because they lack some nebulous mental capacity which you're not capable of quantifying, they are eligible for slaughter. That's intellectual cowardice. Instead of admitting what you're killing is a person and trying to explain why you feel such an act is justified, you must first rob the person of her person-ness. It's a commonly used tactic when it comes to inflicting suffering on other beings. Words like "pork", "beef", "veal" are used to disassociate food from the long chain of suffering that preceded it. By the same token, you use epithets like "zef" to mask the true nature of what is being discussed. In war we've seen slurs like "gook" or "kraut" used to the same effect.

FutureIncoming said:
Now of course I realize that you may now claim that just because "person" may include more types of entities than mere humans... (ad infinitum with a laundry list of faeries etc. that I didn't even read.

Like I said, I'm not going to bother with these tangents. I have a hard enough time trying to follow this thread as it is. It seems to grow by 10 pages in the course of a single day.

It is "mental capabilties" that let me, at least, without even being certain of the full list, think I might recognize a person when I interact with one. What criteria would you use, to recognize a generic person?

I've already answered your question. I have no tortuous criteria for defining personhood, because I have no agenda that requires it.

You have this belief that mental qualities are what make a person. You admit that you cannot quantify them, and claim that you are genuinely interested in learning the answer. Yet your posts have the religious zeal of one who thinks he knows the truth and feels compelled to beat others over the head with it. Science has not answered the question of consciousness, or whether souls exist. Your opinion on personhood appears arbitrary, unfinished, and likely to be wrong. Why would you base life and death decisions on such a belief? It seems to me that the ethical thing to do is to err on the side of protecting innocent life.

FutureIncoming said:
Meanwhile, I find it hypocritical and deporable of pro-lifers to fail to put their money where their mouths are. If they so desperately want all viable unborn humans to be born, then why don't they volunteer to pay all the medical costs, plus all the child-rasing costs that follow?

What a lame attempt. Is it also hypocritical and deplorable for one to speak out against child abuse but not volunteer to take in all the abused children and raise them personally? If I tell a mugger to stop robbing people and go work for a living, does that mean I'm obligated to find a job for him?

FutureIncoming said:
So a plague bacillus is an empty/alive body that doesn't deserve compassion. And a mosquito is another. And a human fetus is another.

:roll: Luckily for you, your mother and the doctors who provided you both with prenatal care didn't feel that way.

Felicity · Jan 26, 2007

jallman said:
To advance the idea that it is a baby is to present yourself as an hysterical, science phobic liar.

...:wassat1:.Well....now I'm just ....hurt ...:thumbdown

Felicity · Jan 26, 2007

jallman said:
And here we go with the histrionic hissy fit again. Not to mention the constant assertion of the lie that the ZEF is a baby when it clearly is not. It is really hard not to maintain a genuine air of superiority when dealing with most pro-liars because your tactics and hysterics are hard to take seriously, let alone respect.:

You could be a little more truthful yourself and state your OPINION as an OPINION rather than fact...I think what mr. hammer is getting annoyed with is that when you use hyperbole, you fault him for the same, and when you fault him for making definitive assertions, you turn around and do it yourself. Both are philosophical positions on when human life "begins" and both have a biologic basis in reality. when you play like you're on the high road, when you're really not by characterizing his words as histrionic and sceetching like a scalded cat...funny as it sounds, it's not really taking the high road you are attempting to claim.

Felicity · Jan 26, 2007

OKgrannie said:
Doctors lobbied for anti-abortion laws, not from a concern for the fetus, but because mid-wives were performing abortions and the mid-wives practice cut into medical doctors' business.

OMGah...(accepting this undocumented assertion as so, although I'm truly skeptical)the irony of what a big f-ing moneymaker abortion and contraception has become...:roll:

ROE v. WADE

"It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage.

From Roe....

It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect

1st...NEVER a "favorable" thing to do.
2nd...Why does the "progressive" left want so desperately to regress to prior to English common law that had some albeit undeveloped proscriptions against abortion? I attempted to discuss Hippocrates as discussed in Roe-v-Wade and his position that abortion was something one should take an oath never to do, and prochoicers simply drop the hot potato and go home. Hippocrates position was progressive for his time, and yet pro-choicers want to go to a period of thinking about life in the womb that is pre-400 BC....That's NOT progressive--and Blackmun's reasoning is simply PROVABLY WRONG in Roe concerning that issue (as well as several others).

OKgrannie · Jan 26, 2007

Noah's Hammer said:
This whole argument is moot and I'll clearly tell you why.

We were talking about why the founding fathers did not condemn the slaughter of innocent children in the womb.

I called you on the carpet to cite your sources. You presented this article that talks about what abortions occured in THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY.

The founding fathers wrote the constitution in the EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

You seem to me to be more interested in winning a debate than even beginning to consider the possibility that taking the life of that unborn is murder.

1069 answered your question better than I, had better links than I, especially this one:
National Abortion Federation: History of Abortion

So your question was answered multiple times, but you seem to be interested in winning a debate than even beginning to learn something to expand your limited mind.

OKgrannie · Jan 26, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noah's Hammer
per•son•hood

per•son•hood [púrs’n hd]
n
human state: the state of being human

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

So a fetus is not a human until it reaches "personhood". Personhood is the state of being human. Hmmm...

Is that really your argument?

What law says that personhood cannot be revoked? Where did you get that from? Is it the same law that states that "personhood" cannot be prevented?

Still pushing the "personhood" argument or are you now ready to listen to reason

Noah's Hammer said:
Still pushing the "personhood" argument or are you now ready to listen to reason?

Your definition is lacking....state of being human defines toenail clippings, are toenail clippings a person? Your error here is failing to recognize the difference between the adjective "human" and the noun "human". Or perhaps it is not an error, perhaps you are deliberately using semantics to obfuscate the issue. Jallman defines personhood as having a brain, and I agree. Certainly personhood requires "personality", which would obviously be lacking without a brain.

OKgrannie · Jan 26, 2007

Roberdorus said:
Okay, well I still don't have much to go on. Perhaps you can explain WHY you don't think abortion affects another person?

Abortion doesn't affect another person, because no other person even needs to know it has occurred.

Roberdorus said:
No, because sperm cells and egg cells are not at a human stage of development at all. See Human development (biology)
However, when the sperm cell and egg cell unite, they form a completely distinct and unique human being that enters its first developmental stage (zygote).?

Sperm and egg cells ARE human, and they ARE alive. What is so magical about their 'connecting', that suddenly, instantly, they're now "a" human being?

Roberdorus said:
Okay, but to what extent do you have a say? You do not have complete and arbitrary control over something simply because it "affects you". You don't get to kill your dentist because he has his hand inside your mouth and therefore "affects your body".

Well, if my dentist puts his hand inside my mouth without my PERMISSION, it might be allowable. Keep in mind that a woman is not KILLING a fetus, she is just REMOVING it from her body. You are free to exert every effort to save its life, including gestating it in your own body.

Roberdorus said:
Grannie? What exactly scares you about democracy? I mean, like you said, "if it didn't pass in South Dakota, it won't pass anywhere". So why do you have this huge problem with giving the PEOPLE a chance to decide whether or not abortion is allowable?

I am not frightened about democracy, but I don't think decisions involving the inside of MY body are properly a subject for popular vote. Furthermore, if you read any of my link at all, you would realize that other women have the same opinion, and will continue to have abortions regardless of the law. Illegal abortions are dangerous to women.

Some things are best NOT decided by popular vote, that is why we have a constitution for INDIVIDUAL and minority protection. Suppose, for instance, that in order to control population growth, the majority of citizens vote to require men who have already fathered one child to have a vasectomy.

Roberdorus said:
That's a really weak justification for abortion. Sure, some women would probably do it anyway-- so what?? Should we make rape "safe and legal" just because people are going to do it anyway? No. That's not the way things work in America.

When a law causes more damage than good, it should be abolished. Anti-abortion laws cause women to die unnecessarily, the fetus dies anyway. The evidence is clear that anti-abortion laws do not stop or even slow abortion, so what is their advantage?

OKgrannie · Jan 26, 2007

Felicity said:
OMGah...(accepting this undocumented assertion as so, although I'm truly skeptical)the irony of what a big f-ing moneymaker abortion and contraception has become...:roll: ).

Read 1069's links in Post 280, they confirm my assertion. Abortion or contraception are not nearly AS big of moneymakers as pregnancy/childbirth.

Felicity said:
From Roe....
It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect

1st...NEVER a "favorable" thing to do.
2nd...Why does the "progressive" left want so desperately to regress to prior to English common law that had some albeit undeveloped proscriptions against abortion? I attempted to discuss Hippocrates as discussed in Roe-v-Wade and his position that abortion was something one should take an oath never to do, and prochoicers simply drop the hot potato and go home. Hippocrates position was progressive for his time, and yet pro-choicers want to go to a period of thinking about life in the womb that is pre-400 BC....That's NOT progressive--and Blackmun's reasoning is simply PROVABLY WRONG in Roe concerning that issue (as well as several others).

Pro-choicers don't want to go back to a time when abortion was "allowed" but DANGEROUS. "Progressive" means going forward, to progress. Legal abortion is safe now, and we don't want to go back at all.

FutureIncoming · Jan 26, 2007

FutureIncoming said:
most of the pro-lifers here eventually discover they don't have any valid argument that works, so they leave.

doughgirl said:
Have I left?

No, but I did use the word "most", not "all". Meanwhile, you still don't have any valid argument that works, just like the ones who left. All you have is inadequate data (ignorance) and/or invalid data (lies) and/or prejudice and/or hypocrisy and/or excess selfishness, and so on, behind your arguments.
You fail to answer pertinent questions, just like all the other pro-lifers. Some of these I know you have seen before:
1. "What makes an unborn human life more special/valuable/etc than a bug's life?" You seem to want us to think that the answer is obvious, but the only obvious answer is "Prejudice". A worthless answer, that.
2. "If it is claimed that potentials need not be fulfilled, such as the potential for pro-lifers to fall down staircases and break their necks, then why do pro-lifers claim that the potentials of an unborn human should be fulfilled?" Prejudice, again? A worthless answer, that. Especially since in this overpopulated world, it increases the potential arrival of a Malthusian Catastrophe.
3. "We almost have the technology to cut someone's head off and keep both pieces alive for years. If this happens to some normal adult human person, and the parts are widely separated, then do you think that the 'person' will thereafter be associated with the head, because of the very capable brain, or with the mere animal body? --and based on the answer to that, should brain-dead humans on life-support be called persons, and why should any humans having no more than animal-class brains be called persons?"
4. "Why do you keep calling an unborn human a 'human being' when doing so is as provably illogical as calling an average rock a 'rock being'?" (Do you enjoy telling irrational lies?)
5. For those "into" Religion, consider this: There is no aspect of human biology that requires the presence of a soul in order to function, just as all the other zillions of ordinary biological organisms out there in the Universe, like bacteria, don't require the presence of souls in order to function. A soul is just an add-on; it and biology are independent of each other. Which means a human fetus can exist and grow just fine with no soul present. AND which means it doesn't deserve to be loved as much as an already-ensouled woman, until a soul is added to the fetus. Therefore this Question: "How does a so-called 'loving' God demonstrate this by condemning women who obtain abortions, after Omnisciently knowing they would seek abortions, and creating souls for those to-be-aborted unborn humans anyway?"
6. The Law of Supply and Demand has never exhibited any slightest chink of invalidity. It clearly states that the more common something is, the less value is assigned to it, and vice-versa. Therefore these Questions: "How can 'value of human life' be considered a constant in an increasingly-overpopulated world, especially when such dismissive lines as 'There's plenty more where you came from!' can become more and more common (because it's becoming more and more true)?" "Why do pro-lifers deny the Reality of the Law of Supply and Demand, and work to exacerbate the preceding problem?"

================
I see you posted something about ducks. The answer to that is simple. As humans become more common and consume more natural resources, ducks become more scarce. The Law of Supply and Demand thus makes humans less valuable and ducks more valuable. This is inexorable, to one day make ducks more valuable than humans so long as human population keeps increasing. The obvious solution is to reverse the population trends. Fewer humans will consume less resources, allowing duck population to increase. They will become less-valued thereby, while value of humans will simultaneously increase. Therefore abortions, along with every other reasonable means of population control, must continued to be allowed, and even encouraged. It might be unreasonable to suggest that executing the pro-lifers would be a significant step along that path. But it might not be unreasonable, either, since they are the biggest stumbling block in the path to a rational human population size (one that can be comfortably sustained for thousands of centuries).

FutureIncoming · Jan 26, 2007

Monkey Mind said:
Humans are persons, regardless of developmental stage.

FutureIncoming said:
FALSE. Because the U.S. Constitution requires counting all persons every decade, and none of them, including the first in 1790, only three years after the Constitution was written, ever counted unborn humans. You can be very sure that the Founding Fathers had input into deciding to count only born humans as persons, in the first Census, thus setting the precedent for every Census thereafter. Therefore not only is it a lie to claim that "humans are persons, regardless of developmental stage", it is a lie to claim that it is traditional to consider unborn humans to be persons. We have more than 200 years of tradition of excluding them!

Monkey Mind said:
You're getting sloppy now.

FALSE. I am not the one mixing contexts together, as you do somewhere below:

Monkey Mind said:
You can't cite the US Census as the arbiter of personhood, ...

I can, indeed. The Constitution uses "person" throughout, and "human" not at all. Therefore the government must specify the definition it uses for "person" --and the government is known to prefer to work with "precedents". I am merely pointing out the precedent of the Census, and how it lets us know what the Founding Fathers had in mind. And Roe vs Wade clearly explains what would be Ruled if unborn humans could be classed as persons, while simultaneously indicating that there is no Federal precedent indicating such a classifying is valid. The Census gives us an explicit precedent to the contrary!

Monkey Mind said:
...because the Census would include a newborn baby..

TRUE. So what? I have always stated that it is traditional for newborns to be considered persons.

Monkey Mind said:
...which you in your infinite wisdom have decreed...

UTTERLY FALSE. I neither have infinite wisdom nor am in a position to make decrees. I have, however, made various statements which are the logical conclusions of various Scientific data. And while I have noted on occasion how the lawmakers tend to stupidly ignore the scientists, I have never denied that the law is what it is.

Monkey Mind said:
would you now admit that newborns are in fact people?

Scientifically, they cannot qualify. Legally, they do. So? I happen to think that laws should embody Scientific Fact whereever practical, and be modified where they don't, so that they do. Do you think that laws should ignore Scientific Fact? Do you think that existing laws that already ignore Scientific Fact should be modified to ignore it even more?

Monkey Mind said:
And, if a newborn is a person then by what stretch of the imagination can that same newborn not still be a person 5 minutes before birth?

Simple. Before birth the survival mode of a human is parasitic; it takes what it wants from the host, regardless of any inclinations of the host. After birth, a human isn't parasitic. Everything it receives in order to survive can be a voluntary gift. The Law may require such gifts, due to ignoring Scientific Fact and classifying the human as a person worthy of such gifts --but keep in mind that other Law allows the newborn to be put up for adoption, should the parents not want to provide those gifts. There is no equivalent to adoption for an unborn parasitic human, so any Law that prohibits abortion is basically forcing someone to be a host to a parasite. Shall we write a Law to force you to host malaria, should you happen to contract that parasite? What makes one parasite more important than another? Prejudice? We just spent most of the last century fighting prejudice, especially in the Law!

FutureIncoming said:
"person" must have a more generic definition than what you wrote. It must encompass all sorts of entities, while nevertheless excluding mere animals.

Monkey Mind said:
No, it mustn't. A person is a person, which is a living human. Other entities may have person-like qualities but that doesn't make them persons.

By that logic, therefore:
1. "Right to life" can be equated with "Right to continue to exist as a dynamic organism".
2. Non-persons do not have 'right to life".
3. One popular non-human entity is called "God".
4. God does not have a right to continue to exist.
5. Churches should be banned, for encouraging human/person subservience to a nonperson that has no right to exist.

That is just the tip of the iceberg of stupidity, the logical consequences of ignoring Science, and declaring that a person has to be a living human. (And of course that's also why you don't want to talk about any other kind of possible person; it would destroy your ridiculous claim.) Meanwhile, your claimed definition continues to be Legally Untrue, thanks to current definition, buttressed by the precedent of the Census.

MonkeyMind said:
in this {{thread}} lets focus on your attempts at dehumanizing babies and the unborn.

FutureIncoming said:
Now you are lying outright, since I have never made any attempt whatsoever to dehumanize any human of any developmental stage. I only attempt to distinguish human animals from human persons, and I can do this because the definition of "person" cannot always equal "human".

Monkey Mind said:
In this thread and others you attempt to dehumanize fetuses and infants by claiming they are not persons.

"I only attempt to distinquish human animals from human persons" means that I totally acknowledge the complete human-ness of all developmental stages. But since "human-ness" is not identical with "person-ness", in both Law and precedent, despite your lies to the contrary, all you are doing is continuing to repeat your other lie, about "dehumanizing", in spite of the lie being exposed. How is that a sign of person-class intelligence on your part?

Monkey Mind said:
You say that because they lack some nebulous mental capacity which you're not capable of quantifying, they are eligible for slaughter.

PARTLY FALSE. I have on various occasions asked this questions like this one: "If a human exhibits no more mental capacity than an ordinary animal, then why should the human be classed as a person and not an animal?" This is a quantifiable and measurable thing! --simply because we have a wide range of declared-to-be-animals, to have their mental capacities compared to humans, especially unborn humans. The thing about your statement that is true, is the fact that I don't know all the details of all relevant mental capabilties, to create some Absolute Scale against which one can say that some particular mind deserves to be granted person status. But that is not important when equalities can be measured and identified. And it leaves you with the problem of answering the question near the start of this paragraph.

Monkey Mind said:
That's intellectual cowardice.

FALSE. I've dealt forthrightly with all your claims and questions, while you have cowardly avoided some of mine, such as this one:

FutureIncoming said:
You were the one that mentioned "tradition". I merely wrote that according to tradition, those entities I mentioned {{angels, brownies, leprechauns, and "little people"}} were at one time considered to be every bit as real as humans--and persons, too. Which makes a hash of the notion that "person" must equal "human".

Especially when the traditional phrase "little people" is synonymous with "little persons".

Monkey Mind said:
Instead of admitting what you're killing is a person ...

That can only be true if the claimed-to-be-a-person is actually a person in the first place. So far, your mere unsupported and proven-false claims are worthless, regarding what constitutes a person.

Monkey Mind said:
...and trying to explain why you feel such an act is justified,

Nonsense. I've explained in various places why it can be justified to prosecute/execute/kill fully-qualifying persons who happen to be pro-lifers. They are working to commit genocide of up to 99% of the human species, by helping to cause a Malthusian Catastrophe --and they must be stopped.

For provable non-persons such as parasitic animal-class unborn humans, there is no need for their owners to justify killing them.

Monkey Mind said:
... you must first rob the person of her person-ness.

FALSE, TWICE, as just explained above.

Monkey Mind said:
you use epithets like "zef" to mask the true nature of what is being discussed.

Actually I use "ZBEF" because it is easier to type than "Zygote/Blastocyst/Embryo/Fetus", all of which can be perfectly human, and none of which can qualify as a person, in Scientifically Measurable Fact; they have less mental capabilities than many ordinary animals.

{{to be continued}}

FutureIncoming · Jan 26, 2007

Monkey Mind said:
I have a hard enough time trying to follow this thread as it is. It seems to grow by 10 pages in the course of a single day.

Near top-left of this Web page, click on "User CP". Among the options you can access from that point, you can increase number of posts-displayed-per-page, to 40. This particular thread has been somewhat more active than I'm used to seeing, but with that setting, I only saw it grow by two pages per day. You can also view messages in most-recent-message-first order.

jallman · Jan 26, 2007

talloulou said:
What the hell is a ZEF? Is that the newest dehumanizing lingo? Hmm...will work on acronym to dehumanize prochoicers. How about:

KKK kooks killing kids

or

WTF women terminating fetuses

So which would you all prefer to be called KKKs or WTFs?

ZEF- you will find it in many threads over and over again used by pro-choicers and pro-lifers. It stands for zygote-embryo-fetus. Three stages of development in utero.

Way to jump on the hysterics train talloulou...really, I have come to expect more from you.

jallman · Jan 26, 2007

Noah's Hammer said:
Still pushing the "personhood" argument or are you now ready to listen to reason?

Reason, kind sir, is understanding that a line of development does not hold the same product at its beginning and end. Otherwise, it would not be a line of development, but a static continuum. The Roe V Wade ruling itself established that the fetus has no personhood and therefore no protection under the 14th Amendment. Do you even know the subject matter you are so furiously arguing or are you just relying on hysterical appeals to emotion? My guess, from what I have seen, is the latter of the two.

God, where's Felicity...at least she knows how to put together a logical and coherent argument. I'd enlist her help in educating you if I were you.

Real simple:

What are you?

Pro-life

Pro-choice

Noah's Hammer

Member

Roberdorus

Member

OKgrannie

OKgrannie

1069

talloulou

talloulou

Noah's Hammer

Member

Noah's Hammer

Member

Roberdorus

Member

Roberdorus

Member

Noah's Hammer

Member

Monkey Mind

Felicity

Felicity

Felicity

OKgrannie

OKgrannie

OKgrannie

OKgrannie

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

jallman

jallman