• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Can't the Pro-Abortion Crowd Ever be Honest?

Status
Not open for further replies.
dolphinocean said:
Please show me where have I played semantics and used false definition. My argument is grounded firmly in biology, specifically Human embryology. There is no need for me to play semantics let alone falsifying definition.

If there is any semantic use in my debate, that’s because I was engaging them with the semantics they throw out at me as the basis of their argument. When I put their semantic in context and throw it back to them, it would sound ridiculous simply because their semantic argument was absurd. In your complete lack of understanding and bias, you simply ignore their error in logic but would pin their absurdity on me, as if I was the one making those ridiculous semantic argument.

Ii’s not that you didn’t know, because previously you had accused me of same and I had explained you. Now that you are doing it again, it makes you a liar who makes false charges.
Click to expand...

Uh-oh... the "liar" charge! Seriously dude, don’t act like a clown. :lol:

I am not sure how I am lying when I point this out and all you do is post some opinionated statements. But okay…

Both sides make absurd inaccurate statements… not just you.

I stated that you play at semantics and use definitions like a “human being” and a “person” incorrectly. A zygote is not a “person”. It is a human life with human DNA, but not a human “being” with regards to any common sense use of the term. It exists so it is. It is disingenuous and emotive term designed to create a sense of wrong when wrong is a subjective and opinionated notion.
 
OKgrannie said:
So DNA makes a "human being"? You are overly dependent upon biology to answer a non-biological question.
Click to expand...

What difference does it make? You don't care what it is.
 
RamFel said:
I think we have an admission...



...and a dodge...



HELP!!! I'M SO CONFUSED!!'
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense to me...

...it is biologically comprised of human DNA but is not a person and not yet a human being since it is not evolved enough yet.
 
dolphinocean said:
Coming from an empty vessel that makes the most noise, without any substance, that’s rich. Rich in fluffs, that is.

Telling me to “stick to the topic if you can manage” and straight face lying about me not providing “scientific proof to back up“ my position and accusing me of posting “misrepresentations of other people's arguments“ and accusing me of making “several rather pathetic logical fallacies” all without providing a single proof of your accusation is of itself pathetic. Not to mention the postings I had in this thread that bear witness against your false accusations. So, when are you going to provide me with the scientific evidence to support your case?

If you “have never claimed that a ZEF isn't a human” then why are you accusing me of not posting scientific proof to back up my position that a zygote is a human being? Or are you going to play semantic game with the word “human” and then turn the table around to accuse me of playing the semantic game when I engage? Isn’t this always the case with you, your cohorts and those wolves in sheep’s skins?

Yes, you and your pro-abortion right groups are the epitome of the abortion culture! Unless you’re the hack that in reality doesn’t exist. Enough of your evasion nonsense already. Please provide the scientific evidence to support your “personhood” theory.

Birth certificates, social security numbers, or the ability to live separately from other organisms ain’t proof of anything let alone scientific.

Primitive tribes in the Amazon jungles don’t have birth certificates. What does that prove? Nothing, except that they don’t have birth certificates.

Illegal Mexicans and other foreigners don’t have social security numbers either. What does that proof? Nothing except that they don’t have social security numbers.

Conjoined twins who shared vital internal organs can't live separately from each other either. What does that prove? Nothing except that they can't live separately from each other.

See how absurd your argument is? And you have the audacity to turn the table and call me pathetic for making pathetic logical fallacies?

Again, please provide the scientific evidence to support your “personhood” theory.
Click to expand...

We're not debating what happens in other countries. The legal system in the US supports a woman's right to privacy. That was my point. And the evidence to support my so called "personhood theory" has already been presented here. When a child is born and takes its first breath, and is an independent entity capable of supporting itself, it becomes a legal person protected by the same rights anyone else has. It's really that simple.
 
evanescence said:
We're not debating what happens in other countries. The legal system in the US supports a woman's right to privacy. That was my point. And the evidence to support my so called "personhood theory" has already been presented here. When a child is born and takes its first breath, and is an independent entity capable of supporting itself, it becomes a legal person protected by the same rights anyone else has. It's really that simple.
Click to expand...

Well, that was lukewarm...
 
evanescence said:
We're not debating what happens in other countries. The legal system in the US supports a woman's right to privacy. That was my point. And the evidence to support my so called "personhood theory" has already been presented here. When a child is born and takes its first breath, and is an independent entity capable of supporting itself, it becomes a legal person protected by the same rights anyone else has. It's really that simple.
Click to expand...
I am not debating what happens in other countries. Debating the life of a human being when his life is at stake, is an issue involving the whole humanity.

When you use “birth certificates“ and “social security numbers” to prove an entity is not a human being or a person, you are talking about humanity in general. The whole appeal to “birth certificates“ and “social security numbers” is so absurd you can’t even see the incoherency of that argument is beyond me. This is the epitome of the mindset of the abortion culture.

You are lying when you said that you had presented your so called "personhood theory” here.

The stuffs you just made up as you go along doesn’t count as evidence. According to Black’s law dictionary and other law dictionary, a person is simply: 1. a human being, 2. a corporation.

Now, please provide the scientific evidence to support your “personhood” theory.
 
OKgrannie said:
So DNA makes a "human being"? You are overly dependent upon biology to answer a non-biological question.

THE PRO-CHOICE ACTION NETWORK

So even though a fetus is biologically human, it's definitely not a person (legally and socially), and it's questionable whether it's a human being (physically). Although we usually consider persons to be human beings as well, that's not necessarily always the case. We could argue that intelligent animals like chimpanzees share some qualities of personhood with us, while a few human beings do not qualify as persons, such as brain-dead individuals.[8]Likewise, we could argue that fetuses are not human beings by virtue of their non-personhood and because they have unique physical qualities different from any born human being.


However, there is a wide divergence of opinion on the degree of "human beingness" of the fetus, and more pertinently - what its moral value should be. Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on that issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim. That's why we should give the benefit of the doubt to women and let them decide - because women are indisputable human beings and persons with rights.
Click to expand...
Not just any DNA, grannie. I am talking about human DNA in a living human organism. If it's not a human being what else can it be, grannie? It's absurd to assert that a prenatal life in the womb conceived of two human parents, whose life is at stake, can be non-biological. It can't be anything but a biological human being. The science of Human Embryology has established this fact through centuries of research and not make up stuffs as you people do as you go along. I have already quoted you several scientific sources from various Embryologists yet you refused to accept for obvious reason.

Grannie, the source from your link is a poorly argued piece of work with not only many logical fallacies and self-contradictions but also emotional appeal.

Examples of emotional appeal (a fallacy of itself):
"American women are drowning in a sea of ", "even executed for 'murdering' their fetuses", etc. = Appeal to pity.

Example of logical fallacies:

Quote:
"Is a Fetus a Person? (and a Human Being?)", "it's definitely not a person (legally and socially)" = commits 2 error: 1)fallacy of equivocation, 2) fallacy of petitio principle, begging the question.

Let me expose it for the audience:

1). Pro-abortion right's argument assume that there is another extraodinary meaning to the term meaning. One being the ordinary grammatical use of "person" as a pronominal role in place of the word "human being. Therefore, person simple means human being as in "He" is used as a pronomical function in place of "The boy". As such it is illogical to ask, "Is a Fetus a Person? (and a Human Being?" or "Is a boy a He? (and a human being?" Now, I know a wolf in sheep's skin is itching to pounce on this and accuse me of making ridiculous argument. But, I'm just responding in kind.

2) The notion that there is an unseen and so far undetectable existence of a thing called "Person" that when acquired by an unborn entity will change the unborn non-human being entity into a human being or a person who then acquire the right to life protection , such notion has not been proven. Therefore, to use the term “person” as a proposition which of itself needed to be proved in the first place to make your argument and then draw conclusion based on the unproven proposition is an error of begging the question.

Examples of self contradiction:

Quote:
"Anti-choicers say not only that a fetus is a person and a full human being, but that this status is an objective scientific fact. Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving, thereby committing the logical fallacy of 'begging the question.'" = self-contradiction.

Let me expose it for the audience:

You see, when pro-abortion right group throw the term “Person” as is it’s some kind of of mythical imbuing “Spirit” that empowers the non-human being entity to become a transformed human being with the life empower title of “person” it is taken for granted that such thing exists without the need to prove. But, when their so-called “anti-choicers” used the term as it is supposed to be used in the English language, i.e., it is a fallacy of “begging the question”. It’s a double standard, they only see the fallacy when it’s their opponents who use it but they don’t see it when they are the one using it.

There are many more fallacies in your source article which isn’t a surprise, but I don’t have time to rehashed recycled and regurgitated nonsense.

But I know grannie, you have no interest to get to the truth. All you are doing is playing games with tricks, deceit and sleigh of hands. I’m not going to expect you to provide me with any scientific source to support your argument. I’m sure if you need a heart operation, you won’t ask to see a geologist for consult. Because, that your life at stake. It’s different when it’s a tiny little unborn human being.

Didn't you already say, “Exactly right!”, to the mac's question that asked “So, in a nutshell....you don't give a damn if it's human or not, a human being or not, or a person or not.....all you care about is the mother and you don't give damn about the ZEF being killed, is that about right?”

So, why waste time to make further fool out of yourself? Don’t you think we have enough of your dishonesty, deceit, and trick on display for this thread already?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Uh-oh... the "liar" charge! Seriously dude, don’t act like a clown. :lol:

I am not sure how I am lying when I point this out and all you do is post some opinionated statements. But okay…

Both sides make absurd inaccurate statements… not just you.

I stated that you play at semantics and use definitions like a “human being” and a “person” incorrectly. A zygote is not a “person”. It is a human life with human DNA, but not a human “being” with regards to any common sense use of the term. It exists so it is. It is disingenuous and emotive term designed to create a sense of wrong when wrong is a subjective and opinionated notion.
Click to expand...
You know your deed, so why go about beating the bushes?

You are projecting your own dishonesty unto others and at the same time made yourself to be the judge. You are in no position o do that, just look at the mirror for once.

I don’t use definition or semantics to make my case. An average person with an ounce of intelligence can differentiate between responding in kind or sarcasms and using it as a basis for the argument.

You are not only ignorant but arrogant. I had posted several scientific sources on Human embryology, which is based on biological fact not definition or semantics, and you have the audacity to spew your nonsense as if it’s legit. You are wrong to say that : “It is a human life with human DNA, but not a human 'being' with regards to any common sense use of the term". Here is what Dr. Keith has to say to refute you:


"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.​


Now, I challenge you to provide a scientific source to support your assertion that “It is a human life with human DNA, but not a human “being” with regards to any common sense use of the term”.

Another thing, you are a straight face liar to say that I “play at semantics and use definitions like a “human being” and a “person” incorrectly” with regards to zygote being a person. I don’t believe in your pro-abortion “personhood” theory, ever. Why would I want to assert that a zygote is or isn’t a person?

Now, provide proof that I ever stated that A zygote is a “person”. Put up, apologize or shut up!
 
Last edited:
Perhaps we should talk in more philosophical terms instead of flaming, or throwing baseless sources, or pounding our chests.

Use layman's terms, philosophically.

I'll go first.

The zygote is a developing human being. A developing life. A life worthy of priority. A life worthy of consideration. Something worthy of respect. Protect the life because the life deserves a chance to live. We know that unmolested it will undoubtedly become a living, breathing, human being like us. Now, perhaps I am appealing to emotion because I'm human and, well, the developing life is to be a human but, as I see it, I feel that everyone has the right to live. I feel life is more important than choice. A choice that is usually guided by more, truly, dubious reasons, whether they be immaturity, irresponsibility, or the disinterest of caring for the developing life within. The only for sure reason I can see te abortion being allowed is if bot lives are in danger. Then the choice is between life & life, not life & whim. There are instances of rape. With that I am torn, because I think of the developing life; the child that is to be.

Perhaps I'm insane for thinking of the future. Perhaps it makes me inhumane. Perhaps it makes me human, and grants me the realization that life is to be held sacred.
 
Originally Posted by evanescence
We're not debating what happens in other countries. The legal system in the US supports a woman's right to privacy. That was my point. And the evidence to support my so called "personhood theory" has already been presented here. When a child is born and takes its first breath, and is an independent entity capable of supporting itself, it becomes a legal person protected by the same rights anyone else has. It's really that simple.
Click to expand...

This is wrong on a couple of levels:
  • When the child is born it is independent but it is NOT capable of supporting itself.
  • It is a legal person protected by the same rights even though one baby can be born three weeks early and be less developed than a baby born three weeks late. The baby born three weeks late is 6 weeks older and has rights while the other doesn’t. Pretty messed up.
 
dolphinocean said:
You are not only ignorant but arrogant.
Click to expand...

I have an IQ of 272 and Nelson Mandela called me a very humble person. You FAIL.

Now, provide proof that I ever stated that A zygote is a “person”. Put up, apologize or shut up!
Click to expand...

Ahhh… the “put up or shut up” game! Does that work for you on your dates? :lol:

I didn't state that you stated that... just that you argue semantics. Calm down buddy...

You know your deed, so why go about beating the bushes?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this even means…

You are projecting your own dishonesty unto others and at the same time made yourself to be the judge. You are in no position o do that, just look at the mirror for once.
Click to expand...

You know what projecting is yet you are using it out of context… well done.

An average person with an ounce of intelligence can differentiate between responding in kind or sarcasms and using it as a basis for the argument.
Click to expand...

Really? If you could explain what differentiate and ounce mean as well as use some punctuation I would be able to better respond. Thanks…

"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
Click to expand...

Finally, something of substance! Whew!

Yes, the beginning of a new human being. That does not mean that it is a human being yet though. Do you call an engine a car?

Also, I am not strictly speaking “pro-choice”. Anything else?
 
Last edited:
dolphinocean said:
Not just any DNA, grannie. I am talking about human DNA in a living human organism. If it's not a human being what else can it be, grannie? It's absurd to assert that a prenatal life in the womb conceived of two human parents, whose life is at stake, can be non-biological. It can't be anything but a biological human being. The science of Human Embryology has established this fact through centuries of research and not make up stuffs as you people do as you go along. I have already quoted you several scientific sources from various Embryologists yet you refused to accept for obvious reason.

Grannie, the source from your link is a poorly argued piece of work with not only many logical fallacies and self-contradictions but also emotional appeal.

Examples of emotional appeal (a fallacy of itself):
"American women are drowning in a sea of ", "even executed for 'murdering' their fetuses", etc. = Appeal to pity.

Example of logical fallacies:

Quote:
"Is a Fetus a Person? (and a Human Being?)", "it's definitely not a person (legally and socially)" = commits 2 error: 1)fallacy of equivocation, 2) fallacy of petitio principle, begging the question.

Let me expose it for the audience:

1). Pro-abortion right's argument assume that there is another extraodinary meaning to the term meaning. One being the ordinary grammatical use of "person" as a pronominal role in place of the word "human being. Therefore, person simple means human being as in "He" is used as a pronomical function in place of "The boy". As such it is illogical to ask, "Is a Fetus a Person? (and a Human Being?" or "Is a boy a He? (and a human being?" Now, I know a wolf in sheep's skin is itching to pounce on this and accuse me of making ridiculous argument. But, I'm just responding in kind.

2) The notion that there is an unseen and so far undetectable existence of a thing called "Person" that when acquired by an unborn entity will change the unborn non-human being entity into a human being or a person who then acquire the right to life protection , such notion has not been proven. Therefore, to use the term “person” as a proposition which of itself needed to be proved in the first place to make your argument and then draw conclusion based on the unproven proposition is an error of begging the question.

Examples of self contradiction:

Quote:
"Anti-choicers say not only that a fetus is a person and a full human being, but that this status is an objective scientific fact. Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving, thereby committing the logical fallacy of 'begging the question.'" = self-contradiction.

Let me expose it for the audience:

You see, when pro-abortion right group throw the term “Person” as is it’s some kind of of mythical imbuing “Spirit” that empowers the non-human being entity to become a transformed human being with the life empower title of “person” it is taken for granted that such thing exists without the need to prove. But, when their so-called “anti-choicers” used the term as it is supposed to be used in the English language, i.e., it is a fallacy of “begging the question”. It’s a double standard, they only see the fallacy when it’s their opponents who use it but they don’t see it when they are the one using it.

There are many more fallacies in your source article which isn’t a surprise, but I don’t have time to rehashed recycled and regurgitated nonsense.

But I know grannie, you have no interest to get to the truth. All you are doing is playing games with tricks, deceit and sleigh of hands. I’m not going to expect you to provide me with any scientific source to support your argument. I’m sure if you need a heart operation, you won’t ask to see a geologist for consult. Because, that your life at stake. It’s different when it’s a tiny little unborn human being.

Didn't you already say, “Exactly right!”, to the mac's question that asked “So, in a nutshell....you don't give a damn if it's human or not, a human being or not, or a person or not.....all you care about is the mother and you don't give damn about the ZEF being killed, is that about right?”

So, why waste time to make further fool out of yourself? Don’t you think we have enough of your dishonesty, deceit, and trick on display for this thread already?
Click to expand...



If you must have a scientific validation for abortion rights, check out Carl Sagan. As far as legality of abortion, laws are passed to benefit society or to maintain order in society. The question of morality of abortion is separate from legality. It is not the purpose of government to enforce your moral views or those of anyone else. If you want abortion to be illegal, you must show how abortion damages society as a whole.

When does human personhood begin

Unfortunately, there is no consensus of when human personhood starts. People have different beliefs' often they regard their own belief as absolutely true and obvious. Even if there were, there is no agreement on the conditions under which an abortion of that new person should be allowed.

Science can tell us, with increasing detail, the processes that start with a sperm and ovum and end up with a newborn baby. But it cannot tell us:

Does the fetus have a soul, however the concept of a soul is defined?
When do the products of conception become a person?
Should a zygote be given a full set of human rights?
Abortion kills a human life. But is an abortion murder?
These are questions with philosophical, religious and political aspects. Science cannot contribute a great deal towards resolving them. Because these questions have a religious component, the diversity of faith groups in North America and the rest of the world assures that there will always be a wide variety of beliefs based on conflicting religious teachings.
 
dolphinocean said:
I am not debating what happens in other countries. Debating the life of a human being when his life is at stake, is an issue involving the whole humanity.

When you use “birth certificates“ and “social security numbers” to prove an entity is not a human being or a person, you are talking about humanity in general. The whole appeal to “birth certificates“ and “social security numbers” is so absurd you can’t even see the incoherency of that argument is beyond me. This is the epitome of the mindset of the abortion culture.
Click to expand...

Do you not comprehend that "personhood" is a legal concept, and begins at birth?
whoosh.gif


dolphinocean said:
You are lying when you said that you had presented your so called "personhood theory” here. The stuffs you just made up as you go along doesn’t count as evidence. According to Black’s law dictionary and other law dictionary, a person is simply: 1. a human being, 2. a corporation.
Click to expand...

Accusations of lying does not change the fact that legal personhood begins at birth when the child then becomes a separate entity. In murder cases the medical examiner checks to see if the baby had taken its first breath. That is the standard, like it or not. Although there have been exceptions where someone has been charged with manslaughter because of the death of the fetus, in general, cases of homicide only take place after birth.

Since Roe v. Wade, the standard has been birth. Personally, I find "partial birth abortion" to be reprehensible. Luckily, those cases are rare and almost always involve a serious medical complication with the mother. The supreme court justices thankfully understood that liberty and privacy, in addition to the well being of the women involved superseded any ideological qualm people may have concerning aborting human life.



dolphinocean said:
Now, please provide the scientific evidence to support your “personhood” theory.
Click to expand...

Already done. Legally, person is technically defined as beginning at birth. i have demonstrated this. Philosophically, it is up for debate which is why this issue continues to be controversial. Sadly many people blindly adhere to out dated ideologies and misconceptions. Worst still are those who believe that they have a right to force their personal philosophies onto others.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I have an IQ of 272 and Nelson Mandela called me a very humble person. You FAIL.



Ahhh… the “put up or shut up” game! Does that work for you on your dates? :lol:

I didn't state that you stated that... just that you argue semantics. Calm down buddy...



I have no idea what this even means…



You know what projecting is yet you are using it out of context… well done.



Really? If you could explain what differentiate and ounce mean as well as use some punctuation I would be able to better respond. Thanks…



Finally, something of substance! Whew!

Yes, the beginning of a new human being. That does not mean that it is a human being yet though. Do you call an engine a car?

Also, I am not strictly speaking “pro-choice”. Anything else?
Click to expand...

My IQ is 300, and I won the Nobel Peace Prize. :2razz:
 
evanescence said:
My IQ is 300, and I won the Nobel Peace Prize. :2razz:
Click to expand...

Dang! That is awesome! My intellect could only garner me a win at the Wolf Creek Bingo Finals 2007.
 
evanescence said:
Do you not comprehend that "personhood" is a legal concept, and begins at birth?
whoosh.gif




Accusations of lying does not change the fact that legal personhood begins at birth when the child then becomes a separate entity. In murder cases the medical examiner checks to see if the baby had taken its first breath. That is the standard, like it or not. Although there have been exceptions where someone has been charged with manslaughter because of the death of the fetus, in general, cases of homicide only take place after birth.

Since Roe v. Wade, the standard has been birth. Personally, I find "partial birth abortion" to be reprehensible. Luckily, those cases are rare and almost always involve a serious medical complication with the mother. The supreme court justices thankfully understood that liberty and privacy, in addition to the well being of the women involved superseded any ideological qualm people may have concerning aborting human life.





Already done. Legally, person is technically defined as beginning at birth. i have demonstrated this. Philosophically, it is up for debate which is why this issue continues to be controversial. Sadly many people blindly adhere to out dated ideologies and misconceptions. Worst still are those who believe that they have a right to force their personal philosophies onto others.
Click to expand...
The legal term “person” is simply defined as 1) a human being, 2) a corporation. If you search the legal definition for "personhood" you simply get a redirect to the definition of "person":

personhood legal definition of personhood. personhood synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


Person
redirected from personhood`


In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers.

A corporation is a "person" for purposes of the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of laws andDue Process of Law


The term “personhood” was coined during the abortion movement of Roe v Wade.
​

Mary Anne Warren, who wrote many articles supporting abortion was sometime credited for the term which she used in one of her article outlining the criteria of personhood.

Among her 5 criteria, at least two criteria:“Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems)”; and “The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both” rule out new born infants from personhood.



As you can see, “personhood” is a man-made term crafted with self-serving criteria that specifically target the object of their intent to kill. Such is the work of evil tyrant such as hitler who stripped the humanity of Jews, Blacks and his other undesirables by tagging them with a label that denied their full humanity.

If you can re-define person as “personhood” with your self-serving criteria while ignoring scientific evidence, what’s to prevent others from doing the same but with right intent?

The Americans are waking up to the evil of abortion and is working to take back the humanity to the unborns by re-defining the term “personhood” to reflect the actual meaning of the original word “person”, which simply means a human being. This has already been accomplice in Hungary:
　
　
Hungary Joins Global Movement to Affirm Personhood Rights of Preborn - Christian Newswire


A new Hungarian constitution will be adopted by super-majority today. This new constitution is being coined as "a constitution for the 21st Century" and protects the dignity of every human person. It will take effect January 1, 2012

　
Article 2 of the new constitution states: "Human dignity is inviolable. Everyone has the right to life and human dignity; the life of a foetus will be protected from conception."
​


Roe v Wade is a sham. It’s not the law of the land like the statutory laws but a judicial opinion of the five justices whose opinions are just as absurd. Your claim that you had already done providing me with scientific evidence for your “personhood” claim is also a sham. It’s a lie.
　
 
OKgrannie said:
If you must have a scientific validation for abortion rights, check out Carl Sagan. As far as legality of abortion, laws are passed to benefit society or to maintain order in society. The question of morality of abortion is separate from legality. It is not the purpose of government to enforce your moral views or those of anyone else. If you want abortion to be illegal, you must show how abortion damages society as a whole.

When does human personhood begin

Unfortunately, there is no consensus of when human personhood starts. People have different beliefs' often they regard their own belief as absolutely true and obvious. Even if there were, there is no agreement on the conditions under which an abortion of that new person should be allowed.

Science can tell us, with increasing detail, the processes that start with a sperm and ovum and end up with a newborn baby. But it cannot tell us:

Does the fetus have a soul, however the concept of a soul is defined?
When do the products of conception become a person?
Should a zygote be given a full set of human rights?
Abortion kills a human life. But is an abortion murder?
These are questions with philosophical, religious and political aspects. Science cannot contribute a great deal towards resolving them. Because these questions have a religious component, the diversity of faith groups in North America and the rest of the world assures that there will always be a wide variety of beliefs based on conflicting religious teachings.
Click to expand...
Grannie, that article is just a philosophical opinion taken from “religious Tolerance.org. It didn’t state it’s author, how did you get Carl Sagan from that article? But, it doesn’t matter if it’s Carl Sagan because his background is in physics. His Ph.D is in astronomy and astrophysics. And his career was in NASA. None relates to human embryology or the "science of personhood", if there is such a thing.

I’m asking for a research based evidence with lab observation, measurement, experiment and collecting of research data to come to a conclusion. But, we all know you don’t have that, so I will be very generous with you, grannie. I will accept the article from your link and break it down for you.

Your own source freely admits at the top of the first paragraph that the so-called “human personhood “ is a merely a belief. Worst yet, it is a belief where different people differ in different opinions, in short there is no consensus. You see that? Even for mere opinion, there isn't a consensus.

You can’t kill an innocent human being with such flimsy belief based on contradictory opinions, can you, grannie? At the very least, our criminal justice system requires the standard of unanimous decision beyond a resonable doubt among the 12 jorors when it comes to capital punishment. Yours have holes an elephant can simply cruise through.

To say that: “Science cannot contribute a great deal towards resolving them”, so that argument justifies killing 47 million unborn human lives and counting while they can’t prove whether the elusive “personhood” is real or imaginary. What kind of logic is this?

What’s the point with Science cannot tell us whether the fetus has a soul? Can science also tell us whether the born children and adults have souls? Does that mean that mass killings of born children and adults are O.K.? It’s absurd!

There was once upon a time when the logic says that if you cannot provide concrete evidence against your accused, then you have to let the accused go. Now, our civilization is turned upside down by the abortion culture.

Now, if the killers can’t prove their case against their victims, the benefit of doubt goes to the killers. And the killers have the license to continue their killings with impunity.

If nobody can prove “personhood” exists, does that means that people can just kill the unborns for their convenience? If nobody can prove that soul exits, does that mean that people can just kill their children or other adults for their convenience?

This is the epitome of the abortion culture. For we keep reading such absurdity coming out from the minds of the so-called well educated and the academia. Yet, some people not only find no problem with it, but also think it’s logical, that's very sad.

But, grannie, you have yet proved your assertion that the humanity of the unborn human life is not just determined by Human Embryological science, but by Geography. So, stop confusing your part with that of evanescence. It’s her job to prove the “Personhood Theory” with scientific means., now just do yours
 
Bodhisattva said:
I have an IQ of 272 and Nelson Mandela called me a very humble person. You FAIL.



Ahhh… the “put up or shut up” game! Does that work for you on your dates? :lol:

I didn't state that you stated that... just that you argue semantics. Calm down buddy...



I have no idea what this even means…



You know what projecting is yet you are using it out of context… well done.



Really? If you could explain what differentiate and ounce mean as well as use some punctuation I would be able to better respond. Thanks…



Finally, something of substance! Whew!

Yes, the beginning of a new human being. That does not mean that it is a human being yet though. Do you call an engine a car?

Also, I am not strictly speaking “pro-choice”. Anything else?
Click to expand...
You have a self-inflated iq and a hot air balloon from Mandela, so what give?

Of course, if you can’t prove your false charges against someone, then you need to apologize or shut up instead of spinning out more lies to discredit me. Only a dishonest person would dismiss such fundamental ethics as a game.

And stop pretending you don’t understand what projecting means.


Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. <snip>

An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure.​


You claimed that the beginning of a new human being “does not mean that it is a human being yet“ and cited engine as example. For one, an engine is just a part of the whole. An unborn human life is a whole unto itself. If you want to compare an unborn to an engine you have to compare apple to apple, which means comparing an internal organ of the unborn such as the bone, the heart or the kidney, let alone that fact that one is a natural biological life and the other is a non-living thing of human creation.

Second, you are using abused word play to create the illusion that the beginning of a new human being “does not mean that it is a human being yet“.

However. the language use in science is very straightforward. It doesn’t play with words to create such illusion as to leave it hanging as to what else it could be if it is not yet a human being. If there is something mysterious hidden between a conceived entity and the point it became a human being, such as some here claimed it’s at birth taking the first breadth, science would not completely ignore such important question and not making any effort to do further research to investigate, to uncover and to identify the nature of such entity.

Since there is no such notion in question ever, neither was there any scientific effort to pursue such investigation, your absurd claim is simply something you and your pro-abortion supporters made up as you go along when confronted with indisputable scientific fact.

So, you tell me, if it is not yet a human being, what else could it be? Certainly, it can’t be a frog, or a fish, can it?

Third, if the phrase “the beginning of a new human being” does not mean that it is a human being yet, then according to your absurd semantic logic, the statement, “the beginning of an adult human being is generally accepted to be the end of adolescence” must also mean that the child transforming from adolescence to beginning of young adulthood, is also not yet a human being. This is ridiculous.

But, you would accuse me of making ridiculous argument when all I do is response in kind against your ridiculous logic and exposed your absurdity and you would turn the table and project your own absurdity and blame it on me. But, you’re not alone, your pro-abortion packs do the same all the times.

Thus, you played semantics and then turn around and accuse me of playing semantics when all I did was engaging the semantics you people dish out to me as your argument.

I don’t care whether you're strictly speaking “pro-choice” or “prolife“. Why you feel the need to constantly announce yourself? Worst yet, whatever you proclaim yourself to be, you deeds show otherwise. It’s very dishonest and deceptive.
 
Last edited:
dolphinocean said:
Grannie, that article is just a philosophical opinion taken from “religious Tolerance.org. It didn’t state it’s author, how did you get Carl Sagan from that article? But, it doesn’t matter if it’s Carl Sagan because his background is in physics. His Ph.D is in astronomy and astrophysics. And his career was in NASA. None relates to human embryology or the "science of personhood", if there is such a thing.

I’m asking for a research based evidence with lab observation, measurement, experiment and collecting of research data to come to a conclusion. But, we all know you don’t have that, so I will be very generous with you, grannie. I will accept the article from your link and break it down for you.

Your own source freely admits at the top of the first paragraph that the so-called “human personhood “ is a merely a belief. Worst yet, it is a belief where different people differ in different opinions, in short there is no consensus. You see that? Even for mere opinion, there isn't a consensus.

You can’t kill an innocent human being with such flimsy belief based on contradictory opinions, can you, grannie? At the very least, our criminal justice system requires the standard of unanimous decision beyond a resonable doubt among the 12 jorors when it comes to capital punishment. Yours have holes an elephant can simply cruise through.

To say that: “Science cannot contribute a great deal towards resolving them”, so that argument justifies killing 47 million unborn human lives and counting while they can’t prove whether the elusive “personhood” is real or imaginary. What kind of logic is this?

What’s the point with Science cannot tell us whether the fetus has a soul? Can science also tell us whether the born children and adults have souls? Does that mean that mass killings of born children and adults are O.K.? It’s absurd!

There was once upon a time when the logic says that if you cannot provide concrete evidence against your accused, then you have to let the accused go. Now, our civilization is turned upside down by the abortion culture.

Now, if the killers can’t prove their case against their victims, the benefit of doubt goes to the killers. And the killers have the license to continue their killings with impunity.

If nobody can prove “personhood” exists, does that means that people can just kill the unborns for their convenience? If nobody can prove that soul exits, does that mean that people can just kill their children or other adults for their convenience?

This is the epitome of the abortion culture. For we keep reading such absurdity coming out from the minds of the so-called well educated and the academia. Yet, some people not only find no problem with it, but also think it’s logical, that's very sad.

But, grannie, you have yet proved your assertion that the humanity of the unborn human life is not just determined by Human Embryological science, but by Geography. So, stop confusing your part with that of evanescence. It’s her job to prove the “Personhood Theory” with scientific means., now just do yours
Click to expand...

Nobody has ANY JOB to prove anything to your satisfaction. You have a limited understanding of pregnancy/childbirth, it is of necessity limited because you do not have the capacity for pregnancy/childbirth, and you are not extending any effort to expand your understanding. The terms of "person" or "human being" have never been applied to zefs in the past, and it just suits your purposes, your agenda if you will, to attempt to apply them now. This is simply not a question that science can answer. There is no such thing as "abortion culture." Abortion has existed for thousands of years regardless of the legality, and was performed in about the same numbers pre-RvW, so nothing has really changed. The humanity of the zef is immaterial, WHAT it is is immaterial, what matters is WHERE it is, and as long as its within a woman's body, it's within her wishes as to how long it stays there.
 
dolphinocean said:
The legal term “person” is simply defined as 1) a human being, 2) a corporation. If you search the legal definition for "personhood" you simply get a redirect to the definition of "person":
personhood legal definition of personhood. personhood synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


Person
redirected from personhood`


In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers.

A corporation is a "person" for purposes of the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of laws andDue Process of Law


The term “personhood” was coined during the abortion movement of Roe v Wade.

Mary Anne Warren, who wrote many articles supporting abortion was sometime credited for the term which she used in one of her article outlining the criteria of personhood.

Among her 5 criteria, at least two criteria:“Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems)”; and “The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both” rule out new born infants from personhood.



As you can see, “personhood” is a man-made term crafted with self-serving criteria that specifically target the object of their intent to kill. Such is the work of evil tyrant such as hitler who stripped the humanity of Jews, Blacks and his other undesirables by tagging them with a label that denied their full humanity.

If you can re-define person as “personhood” with your self-serving criteria while ignoring scientific evidence, what’s to prevent others from doing the same but with right intent?

The Americans are waking up to the evil of abortion and is working to take back the humanity to the unborns by re-defining the term “personhood” to reflect the actual meaning of the original word “person”, which simply means a human being. This has already been accomplice in Hungary:
　
　
Hungary Joins Global Movement to Affirm Personhood Rights of Preborn - Christian Newswire


A new Hungarian constitution will be adopted by super-majority today. This new constitution is being coined as "a constitution for the 21st Century" and protects the dignity of every human person. It will take effect January 1, 2012

　
Article 2 of the new constitution states: "Human dignity is inviolable. Everyone has the right to life and human dignity; the life of a foetus will be protected from conception."


Roe v Wade is a sham. It’s not the law of the land like the statutory laws but a judicial opinion of the five justices whose opinions are just as absurd. Your claim that you had already done providing me with scientific evidence for your “personhood” claim is also a sham. It’s a lie.
　
Click to expand...

First off, I have a sheet of paper that confirms my IQ and a sheet of paper with Nelson Mandela’s name on it calling me humble.

Of course I can prove my charges against you, and you now need to apologize or shut up instead of spinning out more lies to discredit me. Only a dishonest person would dismiss such fundamental ethics as a game. Here we go:

The term human being is synonymous with person. A group of cells is a group of cells, a zygote is a zygote, an embryo is an embryo and a fetus is a fetus that is at the latter stages a baby and a person.

hu·man (hy
oomacr.gif
prime.gif
m
schwa.gif
n)
n.
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
3. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
4. Having the form of a human.
5. Made up of humans: formed a human bridge across the ice.

This is commonly accepted vernacular used by everybody using all common sense. You are being as dishonest as those you debate, people like OKGrannie, in that you use the term human being as an emotive charge so that people feel bad about killing a zygote. You say that they aren’t killing a zygote, you don’t even mention it. All you say is that they are killing a human being. Sounds much worse in that light and that is why you do it.

No apologize or shut up (your rude words, not mine).



Of course I know what projection is, I am a genius. I also did not claim that I didn’t know, just that you are taking it out of context.


The engine example is fine and dandy since the engine is part of a car and the zygote is part of a developing human. If you want to use an apple comparison instead, then that is fine too. A seed is not an apple. It will one day be an apple, but to call it an apple is dishonest.

I am not playing with words, you are. I am debating you since you are the one guilty of playing with words… hence more projection.

And whatever I claim to be I am the opposite? :lol:
 
Clearly the pro-choice crowd actually believes in their position, and many strongly support the notion that a zygote is not a person, and use evidence to back that up. The OP's assertion of intellectual dishonesty is wrong.
 
dolphinocean said:
The legal term “person” is simply defined as 1) a human being, 2) a corporation. If you search the legal definition for "personhood" you simply get a redirect to the definition of "person":

personhood legal definition of personhood. personhood synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


Person
redirected from personhood`


In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers.

A corporation is a "person" for purposes of the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of laws andDue Process of Law


The term “personhood” was coined during the abortion movement of Roe v Wade.
​

Mary Anne Warren, who wrote many articles supporting abortion was sometime credited for the term which she used in one of her article outlining the criteria of personhood.

Among her 5 criteria, at least two criteria:“Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems)”; and “The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both” rule out new born infants from personhood.



As you can see, “personhood” is a man-made term crafted with self-serving criteria that specifically target the object of their intent to kill. Such is the work of evil tyrant such as hitler who stripped the humanity of Jews, Blacks and his other undesirables by tagging them with a label that denied their full humanity.

If you can re-define person as “personhood” with your self-serving criteria while ignoring scientific evidence, what’s to prevent others from doing the same but with right intent?

The Americans are waking up to the evil of abortion and is working to take back the humanity to the unborns by re-defining the term “personhood” to reflect the actual meaning of the original word “person”, which simply means a human being. This has already been accomplice in Hungary:
　
　
Hungary Joins Global Movement to Affirm Personhood Rights of Preborn - Christian Newswire


A new Hungarian constitution will be adopted by super-majority today. This new constitution is being coined as "a constitution for the 21st Century" and protects the dignity of every human person. It will take effect January 1, 2012

　
Article 2 of the new constitution states: "Human dignity is inviolable. Everyone has the right to life and human dignity; the life of a foetus will be protected from conception."
​


Roe v Wade is a sham. It’s not the law of the land like the statutory laws but a judicial opinion of the five justices whose opinions are just as absurd. Your claim that you had already done providing me with scientific evidence for your “personhood” claim is also a sham. It’s a lie.
　
Click to expand...

Repeating the same definition over and over doesn't change the fact that legally, personhood begins at birth. And sorry to rain on your parade, but Roe v. Wade is not a sham. In fact, it is very legitimate. And I am grateful for one, that your twisted principles are not forced upon the rest of society, and furthermore, that logic doesn't support your ideology. Your contempt for those who do not agree with you persuades no one.
 
Paschendale said:
Clearly the pro-choice crowd actually believes in their position, and many strongly support the notion that a zygote is not a person, and use evidence to back that up. The OP's assertion of intellectual dishonesty is wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree that a ZEF is not a person up to a certain point. Person-hood is completely irrelevant to my position, however.
 
dolphinocean said:
The Americans are waking up to the evil of abortion and is working to take back the humanity to the unborns by re-defining the term “personhood” to reflect the actual meaning of the original word “person”, which simply means a human being. This has already been accomplice in Hungary:
　
　
Hungary Joins Global Movement to Affirm Personhood Rights of Preborn - Christian Newswire

A new Hungarian constitution will be adopted by super-majority today. This new constitution is being coined as "a constitution for the 21st Century" and protects the dignity of every human person. It will take effect January 1, 2012

Article 2 of the new constitution states: "Human dignity is inviolable. Everyone has the right to life and human dignity; the life of a foetus will be protected from conception."
​

Roe v Wade is a sham. It’s not the law of the land like the statutory laws but a judicial opinion of the five justices whose opinions are just as absurd. Your claim that you had already done providing me with scientific evidence for your “personhood” claim is also a sham. It’s a lie.
　
Click to expand...

Apparently, the new constitution does not affect the old laws on abortion. In addition, there have been massive protests regarding the new constitution which is also heavily criticized by the European Union leaving doubt the constitution will stand up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom