• 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!

The Question of Jake or John [W:35]

Lursa said:
Yeah, I addressed that here....did you respond?
Click to expand...
In #350. If you have responded to that, I haven't reached it yet (this is a reply to #359), but will in due course.

Lursa said:
And that post is contemporary to the one you responded to, btw. You are just now indicating some awareness of that aspect of the issue.
Click to expand...
If you want me to follow what you are saying, you ought to include message-numbers if not quotations. I should have said an additional thing a while back when I replied to a message of yours that included the word "allude". When you are not precise, you make it easy for an erroneous assumption to get made. If you are doing that on purpose, just so you can ridicule the assumption that got made, fine. It means I learn you are not really interested in ensuring pro-choicers get and keep the upper hand in the Overall Abortion Debate. But if you are just not thinking about the consequences of alluding, instead of being specific, then perhaps you now see why the latter is much better than the former.
 
Lursa said:
Stop typing for God's sake. Your original claim was that anything containing human DNA was a living organism. Not 'living."
Click to expand...
FIND THAT EXACT QUOTE! Because I'm quite sure I actually wrote something else, that you misinterpreted.

Lursa said:
Your desperate need to justify your inaccuracy is annoying....
Click to expand...
Prove my inaccuracy before complaining about it! Find the quote!!!
 
Lursa said:
Er no. I never accepted your very loose and disrespectful use of 'brainwashed' so you are wrong.

And you have yet to provide any evidence that there is a legal basis for a new amendment at all....so that's fantasy as far as I'm concerned.

If you can provide a legal basis that is Constitutional and justifies the other rights violations it would entail, please do enlighten us.
Click to expand...
I reference #350 again, and if you have replied to that, will see it in due course.
 
Lursa said:
Not new, not original, and exactly what legal restrictions are there on the Census Bureau changing it's questions and criteria regarding persons? How would that possibly impact the Constitution? The Constitution informs law, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Actually, the way it works is that the Constitution specifically says that Congress shall pass a Law specifying how the Census should be conducted. Now recall that definition of "person" you provided here:
Lursa said:
I never ever said that "human" equaled "person." ...
Click to expand...
Since it is easy for one ordinary Law to replace another, all Congress need do is specify that the unborn get counted as persons in the upcoming 2020 Census, and viola! Abortion opponents will have a field day!

POSSIBLY the Supreme Court could invalidate that particular aspect of the 2020 Census Law, entirely because of 220+ years of Legal Precedent, in which the unborn were not counted as persons. Also, there is the 13th Amendment; a simple ordinary Census Law cannot subject women to involuntary servitude. But what is possible, and what actually happens or not (what if the SC got loaded with abortion opponents before 2020?), remains to be seen.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Doesn't work for me. To me, the crucial difference between the unborn fetus and the pig or dolphin is the fetus is HUMAN. If left alone, it will normally develop into a functional adult human.
Click to expand...
FALSE. Study the topic of "feral children". THAT is what always happens when humans are "left alone" while developing. The truth of the matter is, human biology (Nature) alone does not explain our minds. Only Nurture in the earliest years explains it. Left alone, without appropriate Nurture, any human grows up to become nothing more than a clever animal, like a chimp or gorilla. See #96 in this Thread for some more info about that.

Goshin said:
The brain capability argument is a dangerous one... taken just a little bit further, it could justify infanticide, in the pig/dolphin comparison case.
Click to expand...
Yes it could --but that has nothing to do with the Overall Abortion Debate! A debate over infanticide would be an entirely different Debate. And I don't see many folks lining up to promote infanticide, do you? (Not to mention, if infanticide was allowed, so also would be allowed very-late-term abortions, after which just how many born infants would be at-risk for infanticide? Thus as far as the Overall Abortion Debate is concerned, any talk of infanticide is just a red herring.
 
Lursa said:
No idea what you are talking about and no, you never proved this (You have not remotely proven that people's religious or philosophical beliefs pertaining to abortion are objectively wrong).
Click to expand...
Your mere claim is worthless without evidence. All I see is you claiming I haven't proved it, unsupported by any detail. I very definitely offered a proof. If the proof is invalid, your mere say-so is inadequate; you need to explain how its logic is wrong, or what data-items are faulty, that the argument is based on, in order to invalidate it.

Now since I know it would be annoying to discuss it while all the pieces of the argument are scattered along both Threads, I'll try to get it all together right here, with some simplifications and paraphrasings of certain quotes, for this presentation.

1. Morals are provably arbitrary, and thus are not automatically Objective. ALL claims that something-or-other is moral, or immoral, are suspect (not guaranteed to be valid) because they are not backed up with Objectivity. They are only backed up with authoritarian say-so, and that is a fact of History.

2.
FutureIncoming said:
Meanwhile, there is "ethics", which can be based on an Objectively verifiable foundation-statement. An example of such a statement is, "Persons need to get-along with each other, for maximum mutual benefit." Do you have any doubts regarding the veracity of that statement? Assuming you don't, then all some society needs is a set of social rules that are consistent with the foundation-statement. Many of those rules are likely to be similar to rules called "moral" --note that while murder is not a mutually beneficial thing between persons, assisted suicide could be-- here the ethics-rules will not be arbitrary.
Click to expand...

3.
FutureIncoming said:
... there is plenty of Objective data showing that prejudice does not promote mutual benefit between persons. {This Objectively} prove{s} most prejudicial beliefs "wrong"
Click to expand...

4.
FutureIncoming said:
In computer science there is a classic observation abbreviated as GIGO, "garbage in, garbage out". Logic doesn't care in the least what data it works with, but if the input data is bad, the output data will also be bad.
Click to expand...

5.
FutureIncoming said:
... the GIGO thing ... can be referenced two different ways. One of those ways is, if a conclusion is wrong but the logic is valid, then at least some of the initial data had to be wrong.
Click to expand...

6.
FutureIncoming said:
{A} particular prejudice ... is the favoring of humans over all other life-forms... And that prejudice directly stems from the claim that humans are inherently special.
Click to expand...

7.
FutureIncoming said:
It is a proven fact that human psychological health is improved by interactions with other species, sometimes as simple a thing as taking a walk in a park. So, by destroying thousands of species every year, human overpopulation is decreasing the variety of ways human psychological health can benefit. It should be relatively obvious that psychologically unhealthy humans don't get-along with others very well. Thus prejudice for humans over other species backfires, and is Objectively wrong.
Click to expand...

8.
FutureIncoming said:
Since prejudice is {often rationalized by} beliefs {and are Objectively wrong per (3.) above}, there most definitely is something {Objectively} wrong in those beliefs.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Still wrong. Every living cell is not a living organism. I am embarrassed for you:
Levels of Organization in Organisms
Click to expand...
That in no way denies the fact that a muscle cell can be extracted from an ordinary multicellular organism/environment, and independently thrive in an appropriately-prepared Petri-dish environment. As a single cell it IS an organism, including being able to make enough copies of itself that blocks of meat could be grown that way! A cuticle cell is trivially different from a muscle cell (both are "flesh"), so I have no doubt that if desired, one could extract a human cuticle cell and watch it thrive in an appropriately-prepared Petri-dish environment.

Also, I wrote "living cells almost always qualify as organisms", and I see you wrote: "Every living cell is not a living organism". DUH --see that "almost" in what I wrote? Red corpuscles, for example, are often called "cells", but they are not organisms, and probably don't really qualify as "living". Sperm cells are alive, but each is about as much an "organism" as a homing missile. It might actually be more accurate to compare a sperm to a battery-powered toy, than to say it is alive.
 
Lursa said:
??? Gee, where do today's pro-life supporters come from? And then tell me how you will prevent that influence in the future. Because all today's pro-life supporters had biology in school and not much else you've provided in terms of science is new. So...why havent all your facts been "working? We've already discussed that people CHOOSE a balance in their political and religious/philosophical positions. What additional info do you think you are providing to enable that further?
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that they mostly start as children of abortion opponents. The normal schooling process lets parents tell kids anything they want for years, before formal schooling begins. That tends to make it different for 3rd parties to teach skepticism early enough to make a difference. However, the widespread existence of TV programs for young children offers a possible way.

Lursa said:
Like I said, abortion rates go down every year. Most people believe that is the result of improvement in women's socio-economic conditions. If you can prove that it's because there has been a change in ideology surrounding abortion, please do so.
Click to expand...
If abortion rates are going down by choice, I'm almost entirely fine with that. I do note that the word "rate" is one of those things associated with statistics, so:
MarkTwain said:
(from Mark Twain's Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American Review) Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Click to expand...
Worldwide and for about the last 40 years, population has been growing at about 80 per year. If each year there are more people than before, but absolute year-on-year growth is basically constant, then the rate of growth has been declining. The implication is that the rate of pregnancies has been declining. And relatively fewer pregnancies (per that word "rate") implies a lesser likelihood for women to seek abortions.... :)
 
Lursa said:
I told you, I posted it twice. That you choose to pretend it wasnt posted is just a tactic to avoid that fact. It's there, for anyone that was interested to see. Your denial doesnt work. LOL "evidence". You removed the relevant part of the quote.
Click to expand...
All I see are mere claims, not links to the evidence. YOU say the evidence is there, but **I** don't have to hunt it down, because the Burden of Proof is upon you to support your positive claims. So, try again!
 
Lursa said:
Please explain how there can be a new Constitutional amendment that violates not just one, but many or even most, other Constitutional rights?
Click to expand...
An Amendment is allowed to edit any aspect of the Constitution, including prior Amendments. And multiple different things can be addressed, too (see the 14th for an example). Generically, the wordings used in existing Amendments imply that text such as "This is the way a particular thing shall henceforth be" suffices to basically supersede any earlier and conflicting text elsewhere.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
1. I'm not the only one who generally agrees with his arguments. There's much more than this debate site about abortion Removable Mind. Don't just prematurely think that just because a handful of pro choicers don't accept his arguments that no one will.

2. Un huh:roll: Every heard of debate? Where both sides try to invalidate there opponents arguments and that they're correct and you are wrong?
Click to expand...

I know you have sincere belief in FI's opinions and his long time work on abortion data. Once again, you can consume, digest, and adopt every single word that he's provided to create his arguments. That's your choice. You seem to be a little obsessed with defending FI's post. He isn't shy about defending his own positions. But don't condemn other's opinions or facts that they provide because they don't adopt "FI's work as being the Pro-choice Bible". What you fail to grasp is: There is no debate with FI, we're only being lectured to. We're being preached to out of rote, not debated with. And you obviously haven't connected to the fact that while data is important, there is an incredible amount of subject elements to this debate, that far outweighs the object facts. And in case you haven't noticed, it's the object facts that pro-life most find irrelevant and/or have zero credibility with regard to their arguments.
 
FutureIncoming said:
Did you ever read the book "The Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris? A great deal of ordinary human behavior is nothing more than a variation on the theme of ordinary-animal behavior. Where is our so-called "special-ness" in that?
Click to expand...

Yes, I own it. 2 editions.

And that book matters diddly-squat to anyone that strongly holds the belief that some higher authority endowed humans with special attributes that elevate them above all other species.

How are you not getting that yet? It seems useless to attempt to get to examine this objectively. Thus I'll be returning for entertainment value only.
 
Lursa said:
Yes, I own it. 2 editions.

And that book matters diddly-squat to anyone that strongly holds the belief that some higher authority endowed humans with special attributes that elevate them above all other species.

How are you not getting that yet? It seems useless to attempt to get to examine this objectively. Thus I'll be returning for entertainment value only.
Click to expand...
Everyone here knows Lursa no matter what you present to some people that they won't change there minds no matter what you do. You seem to have not accepted that yet while he has.


I wonder what these "special attributes" are. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Yes, I own it. 2 editions.

And that book matters diddly-squat to anyone that strongly holds the belief that some higher authority endowed humans with special attributes that elevate them above all other species.
Click to expand...
Which is why they can be called "brainwashed-equivalent". I don't know why you keep mentioning them, when according to you they choose to be invalid recipients of the data and logic that prove all anti-abortion arguments are fundamentally flawed, in this day-and-age. (The thing you say they claim is NOT actually an "argument", because arguments in a Debate can be supported with evidence. Technically, they are declaring a postulate, but one that does not need to be accepted --they can't even offer evidence for why that postulate needs to be accepted! And if you don't happen to know how Euclid's Fifth Postulate is associated with non-Euclidean geometry, you might find it interesting to look that up sometime.) Nevertheless, pro-choicers still need to present their data and logic, because not all who will see that information qualify as brainwashed-equivalent.

Lursa said:
How are you not getting that yet?
Click to expand...
Speaking of yourself, again....
 
Last edited:
GEIxBattleRifle said:
Everyone here knows Lursa no matter what you present to some people that they won't change there minds no matter what you do. You seem to have not accepted that yet while he has.


I wonder what these "special attributes" are. :lol:
Click to expand...

Good lord, of course I have! What do you think I've been writing?

And my point which was rarely, if ever acknowleged, was that even if you dont change people's beliefs, you can still change their position on an issue.

2 examples that have been presented:

-- Christians who are pro-choice

--pro-choice women that would never personally have an abortion


Because some people are capable of more objectively examining their beliefs and their impacts on others besides themselves. They look at a bigger picture and find a balance. That balance is different for everyone.
 
Removable Mind said:
1. I know you have sincere belief in FI's opinions and his long time work on abortion data. Once again, you can consume, digest, and adopt every single word that he's provided to create his arguments. That's your choice.

2. You seem to be a little obsessed with defending FI's post. He isn't shy about defending his own positions .
Click to expand...
1. And once again I don't agree with everything he has written. Off of estimation, I agree with about 95% of his arguments. One we disagree on is personhood. He thinks it's a scientific concept while to me it's a philosophical concept etc.

2. I'm free to defend his position if I so choose to since ours are similar to each other not completely identical as you have assumed here.


I'll let the rest of what you said go.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
1. And once again I don't agree with everything he has written. Off of estimation, I agree with about 95% of his arguments. One we disagree on is personhood. He thinks it's a scientific concept while to me it's a philosophical concept etc.

2. I'm free to defend his position if I so choose to since ours are similar to each other not completely identical as you have assumed here.


I'll let the rest of what you said go.
Click to expand...

You're as free to adopt anyone's opinions or data that you wish...just like I am. But if you tell me that I "need" to, in anyway, adopt or believe anything FIs posted because of his years of commitment to the topic and issues related to abortion - wrong, no I don't.
 
Removable Mind said:
You're as free to adopt anyone's opinions or data that you wish...just like I am. But if you tell me that I "need" to, in anyway, adopt or believe anything FIs posted because of his years of commitment to the topic and issues related to abortion - wrong, no I don't.
Click to expand...
That's on you then RM if you don't want to be open minded about info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom