Choices [W:1315]

Henrin said:

I don't see how anyone could date someone that kills human life for a living. People that kill human life for a living should be forever alone.

Click to expand...

Ramfel stated that if his "career minded" girlfriend had an abortion...the baby that might have been born may have been the one who would have saved you life.

It was a silly proposition, because that same person could have been the one to kill you as well.

Still trying to figure out why Ramfel threw "career minded" in the scenario.

JayDubya said:

It's so much less.

It's just your peer group of internet radicals' dumb, bigoted slur. All it conveys is that one is hateful enough to use such slurs.

Click to expand...

Is zygote a slur?

Is embryo a slur?

Is fetus a slur?

year2late said:

Is zygote a slur?

Click to expand...

To repeat, "ZEF" is a dumbass, bigoted thing you internet pro-abort radicals say to dehumanize unborn human beings, and you only use it about those humans you think it's okay to kill / want to see dead.

Accordingly, it's worse than just about any other bigoted slur.

year2late said:

Ramfel stated that if his "career minded" girlfriend had an abortion...the baby that might have been born may have been the one who would have saved you life.

It was a silly proposition, because that same person could have been the one to kill you as well.

Still trying to figure out why Ramfel threw "career minded" in the scenario.

Click to expand...

I must have missed that part of his post. That is actually really unexpected since i believe it was Ramfel that once said he became pro-life because one of his children was aborted.

RamFel said:

There are no non-persons.

Click to expand...

A STUPID LIE. What of the nearest rock? What of the bacteria that your body's immune system routinely kill so automatically you usually aren't even aware of it? What of the grass that gets walked-on in a public park? What of the bugs that splat against a car's windshield? What of a horde of rats? What of a shark that bites a swimmer? What of human cuticle cells that get killed by the hundred during manicures and pedicures? What of human hydatidiform moles? What of brain-dead humans on life-support? What of the expected evidence to support the otherwise-worthless positive claim that an unborn human is a person?

JayDubya said:

To repeat, "ZEF" is a dumbass, bigoted thing

Click to expand...

ONLY IN THE WORTHLESS UNSUPPORTED OPINION OF A JAYDUBYA. Any word can either be a slur, or Politically Correct, depending on the speaker, and the target.

JayDubya said:

you internet pro-abort radicals

Click to expand...

NOW THERE'S A SLUR! Especially since it doesn't apply to most pro-choicers here. (You want to make the positive claim that that slur applies, then Support The Claim With Evidence!)

JayDubya said:

say to dehumanize unborn human

Click to expand...

STUPIDLY, LYINGLY FALSE. Just about all the pro-choicers here fully recognize that unborn humans are human. If you asked them nicely to specify "human ZEF" instead of just "ZEF" (simply because other species also have ZEFs), you might get a surprising amount of cooperation. On the other hand, The Overall Abortion Debate Is Almost Exclusively About Human Abortions. Just about all participants routinely **assume** humans are getting talked-about, when the acronym ZEF gets used.

JayDubya said:

beings,

Click to expand...

THERE YOU GO AGAIN, REPEATING A PROVEN STUPID LIE. Perhaps that is just an ordinary characteristic of every JayDubya? When will you, or any other JayDubya, provide some Objectively Verifiable Evidence that an unborn human qualifies as a "being", in the same sense that an intelligent extraterrestrial alien could qualify as a "being"?

JayDubya said:

and you only use it about those humans you think it's okay to kill / want to see dead.

Click to expand...

YET ANOTHER STUPID LIE. Pro-choice is not about wanting unborn humans dead. It is about wanting to let other humans decide whether or not to want their own personal unborn humans dead.

JayDubya said:

Accordingly, it's worse than just about any other bigoted slur.

Click to expand...

FALSE. A much-worse bigoted slur is to call someone "a JayDubya", because IMHO that quite reliably refers to someone who acts like a lying ignorant equivocating propagandizing prejudiced dishonest greedy hypocritical stupid short-sighted genocidal would-be-slaver. And note that I'm not calling you that horrible thing --you are calling yourself that horrible thing!

RamFel said:

If I get my career minded girlfriend pregnant, and she decided that she will go ahead and have the baby, and 20 years later my kid jumps into the ocean and saves your life.


But on the other hand, my girlfriend decides to abort the child, falls into deep depression, tries to commit suicide, fails in the attempt and 20 years later, you drown into a panicky and horrible watery grave.


Would it have been better to kill my kid or not kill my kid ?

Click to expand...

What if your kid grew up to murder 100 (born) people? Should it have been aborted or not?

FutureIncoming said:

A STUPID LIE. What of the nearest rock? What of the bacteria that your body's immune system routinely kill so automatically you usually aren't even aware of it? What of the grass that gets walked-on in a public park? What of the bugs that splat against a car's windshield? What of a horde of rats? What of a shark that bites a swimmer? What of human cuticle cells that get killed by the hundred during manicures and pedicures? What of human hydatidiform moles? What of brain-dead humans on life-support? What of the expected evidence to support the otherwise-worthless positive claim that an unborn human is a person?

Click to expand...

That stuff you wrote in red, you can forget about. The rest of it was just what I hate. It all sounds the same thing. Trash talk. It also got a laugh from me. Honestly? rocks? Maybe in your head. Bacteria? Like a disease ? grass, bugs and rats? Gimme a break. You need a break!

year2late said:

Huh? Typing out zygote, embryo, or fetus is a pretty long - people use acronym short cuts for less. LOL.

Click to expand...

I think anti choicers make an issue out of this to deflect from the debate when they are losing.

I've been in a few abortion debate venues where the acronym is used and I've never seen people get so butthurt over it as they do here.

Learis said:

I'm sorry you gained nothing from our conversation. I feel I've learned a lot from how pro-choicers view morality based off our exchanges as well as those from future-incoming. It is strongly shown in this post as well as in your prior posts. Your concept of morality is based off of humans as a society and has little to do with humans as individuals. It's easier to see how you could disregard the killing of individuals who are easy to be viewed as insignificant to society as a whole. I've debated on and off for years on abortion, and the one thing I've learned is that no side ever convinces the other side that they're wrong at anything. I'm not expecting to convince you, my goal was simply to learn something new of which I did. I'm glad you feel as though you've won the popularity contest on the forum though, give yourself a cookie and a gold star sticker for that.

Click to expand...

You completely missed my points. Abortion is one of the single most individual acts a woman can do. Abortion isn't a societal event, or for accomplishing a national agenda. It's 100% a private event not for public acknowledgment or for the Public's benefit. If it were the government would be seriously active in Eugenics.

All right and privileges created by the Framers our system of government, are designed for the individual. The Bill of Rights is for the individual. The word "individual" also means "person", "human being", "child - as in BORN infant or ages beyond birth".

And just as we started our exchanges I said that it looks like some moral relativism will be thrown into our discussion, which is exactly what happened.

You want to apply the same moral reasoning for not killing a newborn and apply that to all stages of "the yet to be born" as though they are somehow equal to the born. They aren't for a variety of reasons. And there is no moral consensus among members of our society as to how or why such stages of human life should be equal to the born.

In fact, equality would be a nightmare for individuals and governments alike.

Although our Judicial System didn't issue any rights to the "yet to be born", they did place limitations on the rights of women by creating "States Interests" which begins at a developmental stage referred to a "Viability".

Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992 created a new meaning to the term "Viability" by stating that as medical technology changes in such a way that a fetus can survive outside the womb at earlier developmental stages, that stage will become the new standard for "Viability".

Most medical providers won't perform abortions past 20 even at that stage, and about a 1/2 dozen weeks prior to 20 weeks, because doctors, by their own personal standards, expect to see a serious problem occurring with the fetus or potential health or life issues for the woman.

I'm not trying to win anything. I'm posting both my opinions and facts. You can disagree with my opinions and you can refute the facts that I post, but at least trying not to refute them with your opinions or moral beliefs. Refute them with viable sources that you might want to include links to.

Thanks...

Scrabaholic said:

I think anti choicers make an issue out of this to deflect from the debate when they are losing.

I've been in a few abortion debate venues where the acronym is used and I've never seen people get so butthurt over it as they do here.

Click to expand...

Funny, because I know radical pro-aborts only use this bigoted, stupid slur on internet message boards to deflect from actually having to engage in rational debate about what it is they support. It's used right alongside denials of basic scientific facts a 5th grader should know and denials of realities that don't even require that much education or awareness of existence.

Removable Mind said:

You completely missed my points. Abortion is one of the single most individual acts a woman can do.

Click to expand...

Laughably ridiculous.

Only in the same sense that someone shooting you in your head would be an "individual act."

Scrabaholic said:

I think anti choicers make an issue out of this to deflect from the debate when they are losing.

I've been in a few abortion debate venues where the acronym is used and I've never seen people get so butthurt over it as they do here.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is an attempt by the left to label the baby and make it seem something it is not.

RamFel said:

Perhaps it is an attempt by the left to label the baby and make it seem something it is not.

Click to expand...

No perhaps about it. It is an attempt to dehumanize a human being and make them seem like an inhuman, non-living object.

If there were ever any doubt, they have removed it in this thread.

RamFel said:

That stuff you wrote in red, you can forget about.

Click to expand...

THAT'S PAR FOR YOUR COURSE. Mere claims are better, huh? NOT! Because, obviously, my claims are better than your claims. Even the claims of a 4-year-old are better than your claims. Your method of arguing can't even prove a 4-year-old is wrong!

RamFel said:

The rest of it was just what I hate.

Click to expand...

FACTS THAT EXPOSE THE IDIOCY BLATHERED BY AN ABORTION OPPONENT? Of course you hate that! And the simplest solution is to stop blathering idiocy. Did you ever think of that?

RamFel said:

It all sounds the same thing. Trash talk.

Click to expand...

FACTS ARE FACTS. They are never "trash talk". **YOU** are the one who claimed, and I quote you exactly:

RamFel said:

There are no non-persons.

Click to expand...

All I did is present some examples of actual non-persons. Tsk, tsk!

RamFel said:

It also got a laugh from me. Honestly? rocks? Maybe in your head. Bacteria? Like a disease ? grass, bugs and rats? Gimme a break. You need a break!

Click to expand...

I'M QUITE FINE. Only your exhibited idiocy needs "a break" --and after it is broken, perhaps you will throw it away.

JayDubya said:

No perhaps about it. It is an attempt to dehumanize a human being and make them seem like an inhuman, non-living object.

If there were ever any doubt, they have removed it in this thread.

Click to expand...

An excellent explanation.

RamFel said:

Perhaps it is an attempt by the left to label the baby and make it seem something it is not.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it's just an acronym, used to shorten typing.

JayDubya said:

To repeat, "ZEF" is a dumbass, bigoted thing you internet pro-abort radicals say to dehumanize unborn human beings, and you only use it about those humans you think it's okay to kill / want to see dead.

Accordingly, it's worse than just about any other bigoted slur.

Click to expand...

Again, words zygote embryo or fetus slurs?

Yes or no.

RamFel said:

An excellent explanation.

Click to expand...

Using fantasy to attack pro-choice advocates is one of the most exquisite debating talents possessed by pro-fetus advocates. They'll make up the most bizarre and inconsequential reasons to blame pro-choice for their subscribing to "freedom of choice". These fantasy reasons are very near claiming abortion is sort like being a valid path to the extinction of humanity. Humans are abundant in numbers and even with all of the forms of death after birth - humanity continues to thrive.

Fantasy claims that humanity is somehow impacted by things that haven't manifested (you know, like being born) which is actually required to become a part of what makes the world go around - is an incalculable and sheer nonsense claim.

Only if humans were actually in the process of becoming extinct would proliferating the species matter. And if women were to choose not to continue to proliferate the species - then so what?

Yes, human's of lifespans are pretty short in comparison to the grander scheme of things. But we all know that extinction is inevitable no matter what humanity does to perpetuate its existence. Extinction is out of the control of human...because they're too greedy and busy destroying every worthwhile resource on the planet...despite knowing the consequences. I really don't believe extinction will occur because of the usual forms of deaths.

Humans have to figure out a way to leave the planet and find another sustainable place for them to eventually destroy by exploiting its resources.

FutureIncoming said:

SO HERE IS A QUESTION FOR YOU: Why must any particular unborn human be allowed to survive in an overpopulated world? (That's the sort of positive claim where Rule 5 meets the Burden of Proof.) And keep in mind that "potential" is a null answer --you might get an Einstein, but you might get a Hitler instead; the two possibilities cancel each other out.

Click to expand...

Well you're not going to be happy with my answer lol. It is because of potential, and it's the same reason why I believe a newly born human should be allowed to survive. As I said previously, we're in no position to nullify potential because we might get a bad egg over a good egg. Saying that the two cancel each other out is a rather silly way of disregarding the future. But I believe there is little further to discuss between us. From what I've read, you justify the existence of newborns and onwards because of what the law says. That's fundamentally different from how I justify existence, so there is little progress to be made in that regard. If I was to say that the killing of pre-borns is no different in immorality than the killing of newborns for the sake of population control, I feel like you would just reply that the newborns are persons under the law. I've said before I care little in debates as to what the law says since it has been heinously immoral in the past.

FutureIncoming said:

[part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #1588]


THAT QUESTION IS BASICALLY ANSWERED IN "The Cuticle Cell Argument", which you declined to read. Those essays are long simply because I have tried to be as thorough as possible, to make it certain that no abortion opponent can point out any particular flaw in them. --And, indeed, all they have ever done is generically denounce them; they have yet to point out a significant error in those essays. Anyway, while artificial wombs can change that "parasitic" status of unborn humans, it cannot change the "mere animal" status of unborn humans. So the question I asked you in that other post remains relevant: Why must any particular unborn human survive? For the overall human species to survive, we probably don't need more than 10,000 unborn humans per year to survive, yet the current global birth rate (after accounting for all types of failure modes, including abortion) is about 130 million per year. They mostly survive the abortion gauntlet because their parents generally want them to survive, but that doesn't mean they all need to survive....


NEVERTHELESS, THE UNBORN HUMAN HAS MERE-ANIMAL STATUS, WHILE THE BORN HUMAN HAS LEGAL-PERSON STATUS. And in the USA, rights are associated with persons, not humans. I should mention that personhood has never been associated with the unborn in the USA. The proof of that comes from the Constitutional mandate for the decennial Census. All persons must be counted! (--"except Indians not taxed"). And unborn humans have never been counted as persons in any Census, including the first one in 1790, where the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution were right there to specify how to do counting of persons. Roe v Wade is a totally ignorable Decision, compared to that 220-year Legal Precedent!


SEE ABOVE ABOUT MERE ANIMALS AND LEGAL PERSONS. That entirely suffices to explain any difference you care to mention --and remember, Legal Personhood has been getting assigned at birth, not before, for centuries even before the USA was founded.


I RESPECT THE LAW. I need not respect mere animals that are associated with overpopulation.


NOW YOU ARE MAKING THE UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTION THAT THAT FUTURE WILL BE POSITIVE INSTEAD OF NEGATIVE. Which in a world of increasing overpopulation and associated problems, is less and less likely.


THERE IS NO "MIGHT" IN THAT LINKED LIST OF BAD THINGS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. We are almost inexorably heading for a Malthusian Catastrophe, which we can expect to kill up to 99% of the entire human species. What use forcing all those pregnancies to yield babies, only for them to experience that?!?!

Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from and your reasoning is more clear to me. As noted in my prior post to you, much of your disregard for unborns vs. borns simply boils back to what the law says, of which I care little about. As to overpopulation, a reason to justify the killing of unborn humans for the sake of population control is no different than justifying the killing of newly born humans for the same reason. But wait! The law says born humans are persons so you win! But wait, I care less for what the law says since it once regarded blacks and women as less of a person than white men, so I win! I'm practically repeating what I said in the previous post. There's nothing more I can see to discuss with you, but I understand your points now. Except for the cuticle cell argument. I imagine it goes something like the biological makeup of a cuticle cell is practically the same as an unborn fertilized egg or whatever, and a cuticle cell can genetically be turned into a human therefore killing a cuticle cell is no different than killing an unborn. I could be completely wrong about that, it's just my guess.

Scrabaholic said:

I think anti choicers make an issue out of this to deflect from the debate when they are losing.

I've been in a few abortion debate venues where the acronym is used and I've never seen people get so butthurt over it as they do here.

Click to expand...

If ZEF is a slur....so is zygote, embryo, or fetus. How messed up is that?

Learis said:

Well you're not going to be happy with my answer lol. It is because of potential, and it's the same reason why I believe a newly born human should be allowed to survive. As I said previously, we're in no position to nullify potential because we might get a bad egg over a good egg. Saying that the two cancel each other out is a rather silly way of disregarding the future. But I believe there is little further to discuss between us. From what I've read, you justify the existence of newborns and onwards because of what the law says. That's fundamentally different from how I justify existence, so there is little progress to be made in that regard. If I was to say that the killing of pre-borns is no different in immorality than the killing of newborns for the sake of population control, I feel like you would just reply that the newborns are persons under the law. I've said before I care little in debates as to what the law says since it has been heinously immoral in the past.

Click to expand...

To me the fundamental difference is...the unborn is biologically dependent on the bio mom which allows her to decide to continue the pregnancy ( until viability in the US ).

Once we have a newborn it is no longer biologically dependent on its bio mom.

Before viabilly an unborn is biological dependent on the bio mom.

Before viability if the bio mom dies the unborn will also die even if removed quickly and given the very best medical care.
If the bio mom dies after the unborn becomes viable , and it's removed quickly and given medical care it has a chance of survial.

A nurse, the father, an adoptive parent, a foster parent or another caregiver can feed and care for the preemie/infant.

Learis said:

Well you're not going to be happy with my answer lol. It is because of potential, and it's the same reason why I believe a newly born human should be allowed to survive. As I said previously, we're in no position to nullify potential because we might get a bad egg over a good egg. Saying that the two cancel each other out is a rather silly way of disregarding the future. But I believe there is little further to discuss between us. From what I've read, you justify the existence of newborns and onwards because of what the law says. That's fundamentally different from how I justify existence, so there is little progress to be made in that regard. If I was to say that the killing of pre-borns is no different in immorality than the killing of newborns for the sake of population control, I feel like you would just reply that the newborns are persons under the law. I've said before I care little in debates as to what the law says since it has been heinously immoral in the past.

Click to expand...

If you have no regard/respect for laws as they relate to abortion. Do you have any regard/respect for women's individual rights - in general?

It's obviously that you don't when women co-conceive.

It defies logic that some people believe women become less worthy of their rights and should be subject to more strict treatment by authorities - when they co-conceive - as though they have some moral obligation to proliferate the species.

I think that if laws were so strict that women could only "legally abort" if they would die if they gave birth, you'd be in the Judical system cheering section bragging about how great it is to live in a nation where laws were created to protect zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses...equal to those who are born.

In your opinion what makes "the yet to be born" equal to the born? Using "Potential" as a principle or intrinsic value, to me, is a torpid reason as life at all stages are subject to so many unpredictable variables (good, bad, and indifferent). And this includes surviving.

Most people who are so passionate about the protection of the yet to be born believe them to be a sacrosanct event. Is that your perspective?

minnie616 said:

To me the fundamental difference is...the unborn is biologically dependent on the bio mom which allows her to decide to continue the pregnancy ( until viability in the US ).

Once we have a newborn it is no longer biologically dependent on its bio mom.

Before viabilly an unborn is biological dependent on the bio mom.

Before viability if the bio mom dies the unborn will also die even if removed quickly and given the very best medical care.
If the bio mom dies after the unborn becomes viable , and it's removed quickly and given medical care it has a chance of survial.

A nurse, the father, an adoptive parent, a foster parent or another caregiver can feed and care for the preemie/infant.

Click to expand...

Sidenote: I try to keep my posts as quick and to the point as possible. I feel bad when people have to read a ton. This post ended up longer unfortunately.

---

That is definitely an objective difference: preborns do biologically rely on the mother whereas newborns do not; I'm not denying that. Firstly, I hold (after my prior back and forth with you) that even if an unborn's life has significance similar to that of a newborn and onward, it is still overwridden by the mother's right to not want to risk her own life during the pregnancy, something exclusively related to unborns over borns. My only further discussions pertaining to this matter are about when a human's life comes into heavy significance and why.

In that regard, I have stated that what makes a human's life significant in such a way that innocently killing it is wrong if done for reasons other than one's own survival, is that you destroy the rest of its potential future life. If a baby is killed, we don't say it is wrong because the baby was a fully conscious being contributing heavily to society. We say it is wrong primarily because the rest of the baby's future was taken away. Would you agree that makes sense? I hold that the same reasoning hold's true for the unborn.

From what I understand of your argument, human life significance comes into play based off of viability? If that is the case, it links human significance as beginning when the unborn would be able to survive for a prolonged period of time should it be born. In a sense I can see how one could hold that reasoning. One could argue: why is a pre-born's life significant before viability if it would simply die should it be born during that time? My answer is that if we knew 100% that this would happen in the future (it would be born before viability and quickly die), then its life would be insignificant, and killing it while in the womb is no big deal so to speak. But if we don't know, then it's basically the same as killing a baby on life support before knowing if it will get better and survive on its own or not. I would give this example:

If a baby is on life support and we knew 100% that it will never gain consciousness and be able to survive off life support, many would be willing to acknowledge that its life is over and pull the plug. But if that baby was on life support, and it had even a meger chance of being able to survive and be healthy off life support should its treatment continue, then we would view it as corrupt and possibly nonsensical in saying the baby's life is insignificant because if it were to go off life support as of right now then it would die. That situation is practically the same to me as viability arguments.

That is why I don't view viability as relating in any way to when a human's life comes into significance. Basing the significance of life off potential future is very rational in my opinion. If any of us are killed, the rest of our potential future is taken away. That's what makes it heinous. I figured people would agree with that based off common sense. But if not, then perhaps my own common sense is wrong and different from most.