"Not good for the girl" ??? "Too risky" ????

year2late · Jul 29, 2017

LaylaWindu said:
I get that but my point was you would think sooner than 30 weeks there would be cause to see a doctor. I understand the 10 year old would have no clue why she is sick and going through hell but all the other signs that something isn't right you think a parent would notice much sooner. Of course they don't have the thought "She pregnant" but you think they would have the thought, something is wrong. And please don't think I'm blaming them or it changes my opinion of that it should be allowed I'm just pointing out the oddity.

I get that...but who knows what clothing she was used to wearing and if she dressed in front of her parents.

I can also say that my son always grew out then up....out then up. It was like he was eating for each growth spurt. My favorite was a picture in the beginning of summer after 5th grade....beer belly material By the end of summer he was close to 6 feet tall and belly gone.:lamo I am reasonably sure he did not give birth.

I guess what I am getting at is that kids bodies go through enormous changes, They also may or may not wear clothing that shows the growth. They also may not be dressing in front of parents.

A young girl accustomed to wearing dresses and nightgowns? I could see that.

But yeah, I think I would have noticed.

LaylaWindu · Jul 29, 2017

year2late said:
I get that...but who knows what clothing she was used to wearing and if she dressed in front of her parents.

I can also say that my son always grew out then up....out then up. It was like he was eating for each growth spurt. My favorite was a picture in the beginning of summer after 5th grade....beer belly material By the end of summer he was close to 6 feet tall and belly gone.:lamo I am reasonably sure he did not give birth.

I guess what I am getting at is that kids bodies go through enormous changes, They also may or may not wear clothing that shows the growth. They also may not be dressing in front of parents.

A young girl accustomed to wearing dresses and nightgowns? I could see that.

But yeah, I think I would have noticed.

Well I got two kids so I know all about that

I just still find the possibility hard to believe. It wouldn't just be a growth but sickness etc. I think would notice too.

year2late · Jul 29, 2017

LaylaWindu said:
Well I got two kids so I know all about that I just still find the possibility hard to believe. It wouldn't just be a growth but sickness etc. I think would notice too.

It is hard for me to believe too.

I am curious the place of the uncle within the family. (before they knew of the rape)

LaylaWindu · Jul 29, 2017

year2late said:
It is hard for me to believe too.

I am curious the place of the uncle within the family. (before they knew of the rape)

Me too, not that I want to think about the details but that poor girl. Had to be truma you would think and that would need hidden too.

Tigerace117 · Jul 29, 2017

FutureIncoming said:
NOT REALLY. Where am I saying we need to hurry to solve overpopulation? The problem truly exists and it needs to be solved, but we don't have to be rash. Anyone who claims persons have right-to-life should be against war. Since unborn humans cannot possibly qualify as persons, they don't have right-to-life. ALLOWING abortion to HELP solve the overpopulation problem is not the same thing as mandating abortion (which we might expect fanatics to want).

THAT IS OBJECTIVELY MEASURABLE FACT. There is NO characteristic possessed by an unborn human that some ordinary animal cannot match. Our human-ness is NOT what allows us to declare ourselves superior to ordinary animals. It is far more likely that dolphins will be recognized as qualifying as persons, before any unborn human can qualify.

THAT'S THE FAULT OF THE LAW, not the scientific data. The Law has arbitrarily declared humans to be persons at birth, for centuries, long before any scientific data about Objectively Measurable Personhood began to be gathered. As far as the science is concerned, infant humans are still mere-animal entities. I sometimes point out that abortion opponents run the risk of getting infanticide legalized, when they insist that the current Law about the assignment of personhood be changed. That's because nowadays, lawmakers tend to pay attention to relevant scientific data, when crafting new laws.... Better to "let sleeping dogs lie", and for abortion opponents to shut their yaps.

DO YOU LACK THE IMAGINATION TO THINK OF A BETTER WAY? Besides, there are already enough ways for the Universe to kill most or all of us without us lifting a finger to help it do that. The most likely scenario appears to be a Malthusian Catastrophe (up to a 99% death rate of the entirely of humanity can be expected, which obviously would include 99% of all those mouths-to-feed that abortion opponents insist must get born!).

Why not be rash? If it's such a dramatic problem, then why not keep the can from being kicked down the road anymore? Nukes could end said "problem" for hundreds of years. It's a lot more efficient than nickel and diming it away by trying to push for more abortions.

No, it's your opinion. Not a very bright one either, since one of the major factors which seperate humans from "just animals" is our intelligence and ability to learn and understand complex ideas, rather than relying on instinct. A baby which has not yet had the chance to learn such things is no more "just an animal" than humanity as a whole is "just an animal"(s).

The law has declared that you can't treat unborn humans as "just animals" because that is an incredibly ****ed up worldview which has contributed to some of the worst atrocities in human history.

I lack the desire to posture and pretend half measures are a "better way". Unless you are willing to end the problem, stop complaining about what others believe.

FutureIncoming · Jul 29, 2017

[part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #55]

Tigerace117 said:
Why not be rash?

YOUR CLAIM TO PROVE. "Let's be rash" is your Positive Claim, and therefore it is your task, in a Debate, to support the claim. Not mine to counter it.

Tigerace117 said:
If it's such a dramatic problem, then why not keep the can from being kicked down the road anymore?

STILL YOUR CLAIM TO PROVE. And as I said before, war targets persons. Anyone who claims persons have right-to-life should be against war. Perhaps I should add that to my list of Stupid Hypocrisies (no such thing as "intelligent hypocrisy") exhibited by abortion opponents....

Tigerace117 said:
Nukes could end said "problem" for hundreds of years.

IT COULD BE PERMANENT, TOO. No surviving humans. (Or, with a world full of radioactive fallout, no long-term surviving humans.) One of the differences between persons and mere-animal entities is that persons have the power to say WHY they want to survive/thrive. For mere animals (including unborn humans), survival is nothing more than a Biological Drive.

Tigerace117 said:
It's a lot more efficient than nickel and diming it away by trying to push for more abortions.

I SAID NOTHING ABOUT PUSHING FOR MORE ABORTIONS. While I'm sure there are anti-overpopulation folks out there claiming we need more abortions, I'm not one of them. I merely claim abortion needs to be **allowed**, so that any individuals who want to use overpopulation as a reason to abort can have the freedom to make that choice and act on it. ALSO, remember that abortion targets mere-animal entities, not persons.

FutureIncoming · Jul 29, 2017

[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #55]

Tigerace117 said:
No, it's your opinion.

PROVE IT. That's another Positive Claim made by you, see? Meanwhile Objectively Measurable Facts are exactly that, very different from "opinions". It is a Fact that unborn humans are totally unable to do anything to any extent greater than many animals (like pigs) can do.

Tigerace117 said:
Not a very bright one either,

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! The Facts are on my side, not yours.

Tigerace117 said:
since one of the major factors which seperate humans from "just animals" is our intelligence and ability to learn and understand complex ideas, rather than relying on instinct.

CORRECT. But unborn humans don't have that intelligence and ability. They simply haven't grown the brainpower for it. And they won't have grown sufficient brainpower for something as simple as "self-awareness" for quite a few months after birth.

Tigerace117 said:
A baby which has not yet had the chance to learn such things is no more "just an animal" than humanity as a whole is "just an animal"(s).

MEASURABLY FALSE, partly because all humans are animals, and partly because it takes a fairly powerful **mind** to qualify as more than JUST a mere animal --and therefore what you wrote is just a Stupidly Prejudiced Opinion (see my signature?). Neither unborn humans nor recently-born humans have that much brainpower (see "self-awareness" link above). Tsk, tsk!

Tigerace117 said:
The law has declared that you can't treat unborn humans as "just animals"

YES WE CAN. Abortion is legal, remember?

Tigerace117 said:
because that is an incredibly ****ed up worldview which has contributed to some of the worst atrocities in human history.

ALMOST CORRECT. You are missing the relevance of Objectively Measurable Fact. During those past atrocities, the Objectively Measurable Tests of various characteristics of personhood simply had not yet been devised. Nowadays, though, the tests do exist. Any Law that actually pays attention to Objectively Measurable Fact about persons, instead of Stupid Prejudice (there's no such thing as "intelligent prejudice") is not going to be supporting any actual atrocities against persons.

Tigerace117 said:
I lack the desire to posture and pretend half measures are a "better way".

ENOUGH DIFFERENT PARTIAL MEASURES WILL INEVITABLY ADD UP. For example, overpopulation in Brazil is getting under control because large numbers of women are getting themselves sterilized.

Tigerace117 said:
Unless you are willing to end the problem, stop complaining about what others believe.

WHEN WHAT OTHERS BELIEVE IS PROVABLY DISASTROUS (there is absolutely no doubt that an ever-increasing population will EVENTUALLY suffer a Malthusian Catastrophe), the beliefs deserve to be countered, not just "complained about".

Tigerace117 · Jul 29, 2017

FutureIncoming said:
[part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #55]

YOUR CLAIM TO PROVE. "Let's be rash" is your Positive Claim, and therefore it is your task, in a Debate, to support the claim. Not mine to counter it.

STILL YOUR CLAIM TO PROVE. And as I said before, war targets persons. Anyone who claims persons have right-to-life should be against war. Perhaps I should add that to my list of Stupid Hypocrisies (no such thing as "intelligent hypocrisy") exhibited by abortion opponents....

IT COULD BE PERMANENT, TOO. No surviving humans. (Or, with a world full of radioactive fallout, no long-term surviving humans.) One of the differences between persons and mere-animal entities is that persons have the power to say WHY they want to survive/thrive. For mere animals (including unborn humans), survival is nothing more than a Biological Drive.

I SAID NOTHING ABOUT PUSHING FOR MORE ABORTIONS. While I'm sure there are anti-overpopulation folks out there claiming we need more abortions, I'm not one of them. I merely claim abortion needs to be **allowed**, so that any individuals who want to use overpopulation as a reason to abort can have the freedom to make that choice and act on it. ALSO, remember that abortion targets mere-animal entities, not persons.

No, I said let's solve the problem by starting a nuclear war. You are the one who called it "rash", to which I asked why we shoudn't be.

Nobody cares about your personal list of whatever bud. You are the one so frantic about "overpopulation" yet you keep trying to claim I have to prove that overpopulation is bad.

Yep. Solves the overpopulation problem once and for all there, doesn't it? Vocalizations do not a person make. Joseph Stalin could talk; I hardly say he qualifies as a human being.

That's your opinion that they are "mere animals".

Tigerace117 · Jul 29, 2017

FutureIncoming said:
[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #55]

PROVE IT. That's another Positive Claim made by you, see? Meanwhile Objectively Measurable Facts are exactly that, very different from "opinions". It is a Fact that unborn humans are totally unable to do anything to any extent greater than many animals (like pigs) can do.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! The Facts are on my side, not yours.

CORRECT. But unborn humans don't have that intelligence and ability. They simply haven't grown the brainpower for it. And they won't have grown sufficient brainpower for something as simple as "self-awareness" for quite a few months after birth.

MEASURABLY FALSE, partly because all humans are animals, and partly because it takes a fairly powerful **mind** to qualify as more than JUST a mere animal --and therefore what you wrote is just a Stupidly Prejudiced Opinion (see my signature?). Neither unborn humans nor recently-born humans have that much brainpower (see "self-awareness" link above). Tsk, tsk!

YES WE CAN. Abortion is legal, remember?

ALMOST CORRECT. You are missing the relevance of Objectively Measurable Fact. During those past atrocities, the Objectively Measurable Tests of various characteristics of personhood simply had not yet been devised. Nowadays, though, the tests do exist. Any Law that actually pays attention to Objectively Measurable Fact about persons, instead of Stupid Prejudice (there's no such thing as "intelligent prejudice") is not going to be supporting any actual atrocities against persons.

ENOUGH DIFFERENT PARTIAL MEASURES WILL INEVITABLY ADD UP. For example, overpopulation in Brazil is getting under control because large numbers of women are getting themselves sterilized.

WHEN WHAT OTHERS BELIEVE IS PROVABLY DISASTROUS (there is absolutely no doubt that an ever-increasing population will EVENTUALLY suffer a Malthusian Catastrophe), the beliefs deserve to be countered, not just "complained about".

Nope, once again it remains your opinion. Democratic Underground is not a site known for either rationality or logic.

Which doesn't change their nature one iota.

Dividing people into "mere animals" and "enlightened" depending on whether or not you agree with them is ****ed up.

And yet, if you actually try to sell aborted fetuses as meat you'd get in serious legal trouble.

The Nazis thought they have Objectively Measurable Fact on their side. So did the Soviets. So did dozens of other incredibly ****ed up regimes. Amazing how ideology can magically make one suddenly have "Objectively Measurable Fact" agree with you.

And if you just nuked Brazil, there would be no need for sterilization.

Ooh, countered? By what? Force? Your opinion isn't in any way convincing

minnie616 · Jul 29, 2017

year2late said:
I get that...but who knows what clothing she was used to wearing and if she dressed in front of her parents.

I can also say that my son always grew out then up....out then up. It was like he was eating for each growth spurt. My favorite was a picture in the beginning of summer after 5th grade....beer belly material By the end of summer he was close to 6 feet tall and belly gone.:lamo I am reasonably sure he did not give birth.

I guess what I am getting at is that kids bodies go through enormous changes, They also may or may not wear clothing that shows the growth. They also may not be dressing in front of parents.

A young girl accustomed to wearing dresses and nightgowns? I could see that.

But yeah, I think I would have noticed.

I agree the traditional dress for girls/ woman in India may be looser and more concealing than here in the USA.

It is just a tragic situation for the girl and her family.

I am hoping she gets the best medical specialists and her life can be saved.

FutureIncoming · Jul 30, 2017

[part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #58]

Tigerace117 said:
No, I said let's solve the problem by starting a nuclear war. You are the one who called it "rash", to which I asked why we shoudn't be.

THE POINT IS THAT YOU DIDN'T DENY WHAT I WROTE. Therefore starting a nuclear war equals doing something rash. I am reminded of something I read before the Internet came along, about the classic poison called "arsenic" (actually the chemical compound arsenic trioxide). It has a sweet taste and in small quantities can improve one's complexion (also reminds me of "BoTox" botulism toxin). Of course if it is over-used, well, corpses have so few problems..... You also did not say how to ensure there would be any long-term survivors of that nuclear war. While lots of groups in History have apparently concluded that killing all their enemies would solve many problems, they never seemed to want to kill themselves off. Even if a nuclear war worked to kill only all of just one group's competition, afterward population of that group would still grow, since nothing was done to keep it under control. Which means eventually the world would be overpopulated again, with members of just that one group, and then what? You would have that group declare nuclear war on itself? Your suggestion is therefore useless in the long run.

Tigerace117 said:
Nobody cares about your personal list of whatever bud.

THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE LIST EITHER INVALID OR INACCURATE. One of the greater-magnitude hypocrisies on that list is about the label "pro life" that abortion opponents claim for themselves. Yet they are not in the least concerned with the fact that human overpopulation is killing hundreds of entire species of Life every single year. Which therefore means that that label is a Stupid Lie --abortion opponents are actually only "pro human life", and their Stupid Prejudice about that means that all other Life can **die** as far as they are concerned. Pro-choicers are much more supportive of all types of life than abortion opponents! Which means that that label should be replaced by something more accurate, perhaps "Stupidly Prejudiced species-extinctionenrs". That list of hypocrisies is Public Domain, and rather more complete than other hypocrisies lists, so if anyone else ever calls you out on one (or more) of them, which you never encountered elsewhere, your quoted statement above will have proved to be just another Stupid Lie.

Tigerace117 said:
You are the one so frantic about "overpopulation"

PROVE THE WORD "frantic" APPLIES. Your mere claim is worthless without evidence. Just like the claim "pro life" is worthless when it goes up against the preponderance of non-supporting evidence.

Tigerace117 said:
yet you keep trying to claim I have to prove that overpopulation is bad.

NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. Abortion opponents sometimes claim human overpopulation isn't happening at all. And for those who **might** be convinced it is actually happening, it is more likely they will claim "overpopulation is good", not "overpopulation is bad". And therefore the more-Positive of those two claims is the one I would expect you to need to prove! (Besides proving the Positive Claim that killing human persons in a war is somehow better than killing human animals via abortion.)

FutureIncoming · Jul 30, 2017

[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #58]

Tigerace117 said:
Yep. Solves the overpopulation problem once and for all there, doesn't it?

SEE ABOVE. And remember that most persons can tell you why they want to stay alive, not become victims of war. And very few of them are likely to say that if persons have right-to-life, then war is a good solution to overpopulation.

Tigerace117 said:
Vocalizations do not a person make.

AGREED. Frogs can vocalize, after all. So can many ordinary animals. One of the key things that distinguishes persons from animals is the ability to manipulate abstractions, such as meanings associated with vocalizations. No unborn human can do that thing; it takes years to grow the brainpower to handle it.

Tigerace117 said:
Joseph Stalin could talk; I hardly say he qualifies as a human being.

THE WORD "HUMAN" SOMETIMES REFERS TO SOMETHING OTHER THAN BIOLOGY. I could agree with your statement on that basis. Stalin was still a "being", a person, though. Meanwhile, unborn humans are 100% human and ZERO% "being"; they have none of the characteristics that can distinguish persons from ordinary animals.

Tigerace117 said:
That's your opinion that they are "mere animals".

THAT'S A POSITIVE CLAIM FOR YOU TO PROVE. Meanwhile, the Facts support me, not you. Unborn humans have none of the mental power that allows humans to claim, for themselves, that they are more than mere animals. IMAGINE YOURSELF on a future starship exploring alien worlds, and your job is to identify alien persons. How would you go about doing that? Looking for "human-ness" obviously won't work! So once you begin using some set of Objective Tests for personhood, why can't those same tests be applied to humans, eh? Stupid Prejudice? Tsk, tsk! Unborn humans cannot pass even **one** of the many tests that dolphins can pass, which have led various researchers to conclude dolphins can qualify as persons.

FutureIncoming · Jul 30, 2017

Tigerace117 said:
Nope, once again it remains your opinion.

I'M NOT SEEING ANY EVIDENCE FROM YOU, SUPPORTING YOUR POSITIVE CLAIM. Well??

Tigerace117 said:
Democratic Underground is not a site known for either rationality or logic.

IRRELEVANT. That article was originally published in Scientific American. The Democratic Underground site is merely hosting a copy of the article. Its reasons for doing so are irrelevant.

Tigerace117 said:
Which doesn't change their nature one iota.

YUP. Unborn humans have all the nature of mere animals, and nothing more than that. If you want to claim they have, as they are, more than a mere-animal nature, then that is a Positive Claim for you to prove. Well??

Tigerace117 said:
Dividing people into "mere animals" and "enlightened" depending on whether or not you agree with them is ****ed up.

AGREED. Any entity that can provably qualify as a person cannot, via mere **claims**, correctly be labeled something else. But since there is ZERO chance unborn humans can qualify as persons, it is perfectly correct to call them mere animals. They are what they are! If you want to claim they have, as they are, more than a mere-animal nature, then that is a Positive Claim for you to prove. Well??

Tigerace117 said:
And yet, if you actually try to sell aborted fetuses as meat you'd get in serious legal trouble.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR MERE-ANIMAL NATURE. Furthermore, it is likely that some other animal meats could also lead to legal trouble. (I once read somewhere that when the dodo was discovered, sailors who tried eating it started calling it the "puke bird". It was rats that made the dodo extinct, not at all like the case of humans and passenger pigeons.)

Tigerace117 said:
The Nazis thought they have Objectively Measurable Fact on their side.

FALSE. The Nazis made **claims**. They lied. ACTUAL Objectively Measurable tests for personhood can correctly distinguish ordinary animals (like butterflies) from persons. When such tests are applied to humans, every human able to call self "a Jew" or "a homosexual" or "a witch" or even "a serial killer" would qualify as a person. No unborn human will ever qualify, however.

Tigerace117 said:
So did the Soviets. So did dozens of other incredibly ****ed up regimes.

DITTO. See above. If various fictional characters were actually real and available for testing, Yoda would qualify as a person. So would Sarek (Spock's father) and the focus-character of the "E.T." movie. So would Smaug (dragon in "The Hobbit") and various genies (from "The Brass Bottle" and "I dream of Jeannie"). So would Santa's elves qualify, and leprechauns. But no unborn human will ever pass any of the tests that those entities could pass.

Tigerace117 said:
Amazing how ideology can magically make one suddenly have "Objectively Measurable Fact" agree with you.

SEE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S "ALTERNATIVE FACTS". Lies by any other name are still lies. Actual Objectively Measurable Facts, however, can be verified by anyone who tests them, including folks having a different ideology. That's what makes them both Objective and Factual!

Tigerace117 said:
And if you just nuked Brazil, there would be no need for sterilization.

BACK TO PROPOSING KILLING PEOPLE, AGAIN? How can you possibly be against abortion, if you claim unborn humans qualify as people? (Another Stupid Hypocrisy, that is....)

Tigerace117 said:
Ooh, countered? By what? Force?

FACTS AND LOGIC. What else? All you have are lies and other nonsense on your side, after all!

Tigerace117 said:
Your opinion isn't in any way convincing

STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO PROVE WHAT I WROTE IS JUST AN OPINION.

Tigerace117 · Jul 30, 2017

FutureIncoming said:
[part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #58]

THE POINT IS THAT YOU DIDN'T DENY WHAT I WROTE. Therefore starting a nuclear war equals doing something rash. I am reminded of something I read before the Internet came along, about the classic poison called "arsenic" (actually the chemical compound arsenic trioxide). It has a sweet taste and in small quantities can improve one's complexion (also reminds me of "BoTox" botulism toxin). Of course if it is over-used, well, corpses have so few problems..... You also did not say how to ensure there would be any long-term survivors of that nuclear war. While lots of groups in History have apparently concluded that killing all their enemies would solve many problems, they never seemed to want to kill themselves off. Even if a nuclear war worked to kill only all of just one group's competition, afterward population of that group would still grow, since nothing was done to keep it under control. Which means eventually the world would be overpopulated again, with members of just that one group, and then what? You would have that group declare nuclear war on itself? Your suggestion is therefore useless in the long run.

THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE LIST EITHER INVALID OR INACCURATE. One of the greater-magnitude hypocrisies on that list is about the label "pro life" that abortion opponents claim for themselves. Yet they are not in the least concerned with the fact that human overpopulation is killing hundreds of entire species of Life every single year. Which therefore means that that label is a Stupid Lie --abortion opponents are actually only "pro human life", and their Stupid Prejudice about that means that all other Life can **die** as far as they are concerned. Pro-choicers are much more supportive of all types of life than abortion opponents! Which means that that label should be replaced by something more accurate, perhaps "Stupidly Prejudiced species-extinctionenrs". That list of hypocrisies is Public Domain, and rather more complete than other hypocrisies lists, so if anyone else ever calls you out on one (or more) of them, which you never encountered elsewhere, your quoted statement above will have proved to be just another Stupid Lie.

PROVE THE WORD "frantic" APPLIES. Your mere claim is worthless without evidence. Just like the claim "pro life" is worthless when it goes up against the preponderance of non-supporting evidence.

NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. Abortion opponents sometimes claim human overpopulation isn't happening at all. And for those who **might** be convinced it is actually happening, it is more likely they will claim "overpopulation is good", not "overpopulation is bad". And therefore the more-Positive of those two claims is the one I would expect you to need to prove! (Besides proving the Positive Claim that killing human persons in a war is somehow better than killing human animals via abortion.)

Because I don't really care about whether or not you think starting a nuclear war is rash. It's irrelevant......and obvious. But it also ends your own terror of "overpopulation" with a great deal of finality. Who cares if there are any survivors?

It's hard to have a population receiver if everybody dies.

Another reason to just nuke everything. There won't be people around to harm you precious "other species". Your hysterically amusing random capitalization doesn't change the fact that despite all your wailing, you still only have your opinion rather than any sort of actual fact. People like you love to declare their opinion a fact, but that doesn't change the real fact that your own biases have inherently clouded your judgment. You don't even pretend to be objective as you spew vitriol.

Just about any one of your posts apply buddy. You are pratically ranting and raving. Oh, you mean your opinion?

Killing humans in a war means that you wouldn't need to kill "animals" anymore bud.

Tigerace117 · Jul 30, 2017

FutureIncoming said:
[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #58]

SEE ABOVE. And remember that most persons can tell you why they want to stay alive, not become victims of war. And very few of them are likely to say that if persons have right-to-life, then war is a good solution to overpopulation.

AGREED. Frogs can vocalize, after all. So can many ordinary animals. One of the key things that distinguishes persons from animals is the ability to manipulate abstractions, such as meanings associated with vocalizations. No unborn human can do that thing; it takes years to grow the brainpower to handle it.

THE WORD "HUMAN" SOMETIMES REFERS TO SOMETHING OTHER THAN BIOLOGY. I could agree with your statement on that basis. Stalin was still a "being", a person, though. Meanwhile, unborn humans are 100% human and ZERO% "being"; they have none of the characteristics that can distinguish persons from ordinary animals.

THAT'S A POSITIVE CLAIM FOR YOU TO PROVE. Meanwhile, the Facts support me, not you. Unborn humans have none of the mental power that allows humans to claim, for themselves, that they are more than mere animals. IMAGINE YOURSELF on a future starship exploring alien worlds, and your job is to identify alien persons. How would you go about doing that? Looking for "human-ness" obviously won't work! So once you begin using some set of Objective Tests for personhood, why can't those same tests be applied to humans, eh? Stupid Prejudice? Tsk, tsk! Unborn humans cannot pass even **one** of the many tests that dolphins can pass, which have led various researchers to conclude dolphins can qualify as persons.

Hey, I'm solving your problem, by taking your theorems to the logical extreme. Not my fault you don't like what the end result is.

So what? It taking time to teach a person does not make them any less of a person. It certainly does not make them an animal.

And as 100% human, they should not be treated as something....... subhuman. Which is what you have been pushing for.

You have repeatedly called them "mere animals". You being unable to remember your own words do not change them.

No, your opinion supports you(obviously). You simply can't handle the fact that....well.....it's not a fact.

Tigerace117 · Jul 30, 2017

FutureIncoming said:
I'M NOT SEEING ANY EVIDENCE FROM YOU, SUPPORTING YOUR POSITIVE CLAIM. Well??

IRRELEVANT. That article was originally published in Scientific American. The Democratic Underground site is merely hosting a copy of the article. Its reasons for doing so are irrelevant.

YUP. Unborn humans have all the nature of mere animals, and nothing more than that. If you want to claim they have, as they are, more than a mere-animal nature, then that is a Positive Claim for you to prove. Well??

AGREED. Any entity that can provably qualify as a person cannot, via mere **claims**, correctly be labeled something else. But since there is ZERO chance unborn humans can qualify as persons, it is perfectly correct to call them mere animals. They are what they are! If you want to claim they have, as they are, more than a mere-animal nature, then that is a Positive Claim for you to prove. Well??

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR MERE-ANIMAL NATURE. Furthermore, it is likely that some other animal meats could also lead to legal trouble. (I once read somewhere that when the dodo was discovered, sailors who tried eating it started calling it the "puke bird". It was rats that made the dodo extinct, not at all like the case of humans and passenger pigeons.)

FALSE. The Nazis made **claims**. They lied. ACTUAL Objectively Measurable tests for personhood can correctly distinguish ordinary animals (like butterflies) from persons. When such tests are applied to humans, every human able to call self "a Jew" or "a homosexual" or "a witch" or even "a serial killer" would qualify as a person. No unborn human will ever qualify, however.

DITTO. See above. If various fictional characters were actually real and available for testing, Yoda would qualify as a person. So would Sarek (Spock's father) and the focus-character of the "E.T." movie. So would Smaug (dragon in "The Hobbit") and various genies (from "The Brass Bottle" and "I dream of Jeannie"). So would Santa's elves qualify, and leprechauns. But no unborn human will ever pass any of the tests that those entities could pass.

SEE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S "ALTERNATIVE FACTS". Lies by any other name are still lies. Actual Objectively Measurable Facts, however, can be verified by anyone who tests them, including folks having a different ideology. That's what makes them both Objective and Factual!

BACK TO PROPOSING KILLING PEOPLE, AGAIN? How can you possibly be against abortion, if you claim unborn humans qualify as people? (Another Stupid Hypocrisy, that is....)

FACTS AND LOGIC. What else? All you have are lies and other nonsense on your side, after all!

STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO PROVE WHAT I WROTE IS JUST AN OPINION.

Your frantic ranting and raving makes it clear that despite your unwillingness to admit the obvious, it remains the obvious.

It's reasons for doing so are quite relevant.......the agenda is blindingly obvious.

:lamo

And you again call them "just animals". After what you said last post. Way to torpedo yourself.

Nope, the Nazis believed they have Objectively Measurable Facts on their side. Just as you do, they were blinded by ideology.

And all you have is ranting and raving. Oh, and your opinion.

Brochacholomigo · Jul 30, 2017

VanceMack said:
Holy ****.

A story with THIS as the center of concern...
The scale of abuse in India

A child under 16 is raped every 155 minutes, a child under 10 every 13 hours
More than 10,000 children were raped in 2015
240 million women living in India were married before they turned 18
53.22% of children who participated in a government study reported some form of sexual abuse
50% of abusers are known to the child or are "persons in trust and care-givers"

Devolves into "I ****IN HATE DONALD TRUMP!!!" and "ABORTION RIGHTS!!!! AUUUUUUUGHHH!!!!!"

Awesome. You people have some interesting moral compasses.

Humanity was a mistake.

FutureIncoming · Jul 30, 2017

Tigerace117 said:
Because I don't really care about whether or not you think starting a nuclear war is rash ....

THEN WHY DO YOU OPPOSE ABORTION? If you are so willing to promote the indiscriminate killing of humans world wide, It Logically Follows that you should see absolutely nothing wrong about abortion.

Tigerace117 said:
Your hysterically amusing random capitalization

IS DELIBERATE. I don't use this writing style when I post stuff under my own name.

Tigerace117 said:
doesn't change the fact that despite all your wailing, you still only have your opinion

STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO PROVE THAT POSITIVE CLAIM. Until you actually show how something I claimed is erroneous, especially after I presented supporting evidence, all you are doing is spouting worthless blather.

Tigerace117 said:
rather than any sort of actual fact.

SO YOU CLAIM OVERPOPULATION IS NOT A FACT? When I say something that someone writes is a Stupid Lie, that's because the thing written is particularly easy to prove to be a lie. Ordinary lies are less stupid, because not-so-easily proved to be lies. And so your claim that I have no facts on my side is just a Stupid Lie.

Tigerace117 said:
People like you love to declare their opinion a fact,

FALSE. But people like you apparently love to declare Objectively Verifiable Facts to be nothing more than opinions. Tsk, tsk!

Tigerace117 said:
but that doesn't change the real fact that your own biases have inherently clouded your judgment.

AH, I WAS WAITING FOR YOU TO START BRAGGING ABOUT YOURSELF. It goes hand-in-hand with Fact-Denial, of course. Thank you!

Tigerace117 said:
You don't even pretend to be objective as you spew vitriol.

WHAT VITRIOL? If someone tells a lie, and someone else calls the first person a Liar, then that is Fact, not "vitriol". Ditto with other words like "Stupid" --except I haven't actually labeled anyone that here. I've labeled various things like Lies and Hypocrisy and Prejudice and Fact-Denial "Stupid" --because they are, in actual Fact.

Tigerace117 said:
Just about any one of your posts apply buddy.

AS MORE FACTUAL THAN YOURS, ABSOLUTELY. Because I've supported my posts with linked Facts, and all you have done is spout unsupported blather. Tsk, tsk!

Tigerace117 said:
You are pratically ranting and raving. Oh, you mean your opinion?

BRAGGING ABOUT YOURSELF AGAIN, I SEE. Most folks would consider promoting nuclear war to qualify as "ranting and raving"....

Tigerace117 said:
Killing humans in a war means that you wouldn't need to kill "animals" anymore bud.

A NUCLEAR WAR KILLS INDISCRIMINATELY. If humans are made extinct by it, I'd expect quite a few other species to go extinct at the same time, for the same reasons (intense radioactive fallout, mostly, affecting those not directly killed by blast effects).

FutureIncoming · Jul 30, 2017

Tigerace117 said:
Hey, I'm solving your problem, by taking your theorems to the logical extreme.

STUPIDLY FALSE. I do not confuse unborn humans with persons. War targets persons. Abortion targets mere animals. While it is Fact that unborn humans often have potential to become persons, and thus add to the world's human-overpopulation problem, it is also Fact that they are humans that don't qualify as persons, which means they are humans that could be killed to help solve the human-overpopulation problem, without deliberately harming any actual persons.

Tigerace117 said:
Not my fault you don't like what the end result is.

MISINTERPRETATION. What I'm not liking is the idiocy you spouted, that equates unborn humans with persons. War targets persons. Abortion targets mere animals.

Tigerace117 said:
So what? It taking time to teach a person does not make them any less of a person.

NOTHING I WROTE SUGGESTS I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. Do note, however, that even you have just-now indicated that "teaching a person" first requires that a person actually be present to be taught. Unborn humans still don't qualify!

Tigerace117 said:
It certainly does not make them an animal.

ALL HUMANS ARE ANIMALS. Human persons are humans that are more than **only** animals. Unborn humans still don't qualify; they are only animals, and nothing more than that. There is no characteristic they possess that cannot be matched by some ordinary animal.

Tigerace117 said:
And as 100% human,

I APOLOGIZE FOR LEAVING OUT THE WORD "biologically". Unborn humans are 100% biologically human. But that is not enough to make them superior to ordinary animals.

Tigerace117 said:
they should not be treated as something....... subhuman.

THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE. Unborn humans are not more than what they are, and they are not less than what they are. Perhaps I should remind you that many folks, on both sides of the Overall Abortion Debate, routinely visit salons where manicures and pedicures are performed. Those procedures regularly kill human cuticle cells by the hundred --and each such cell fully qualifies as "human life". Each cuticle cell is what it is; it is not more than what it is, and it is not less than what it is. It is no more "subhuman" than an unborn human, but it is perfectly OK to be killed by the hundred.

THE POINT OF THE PRECEDING IS THAT THE WORD "HUMAN" DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING SPECIAL. If you want to claim it does mean something special, then that is yet another Positive Claim for you to support with evidence. And I'm still waiting for you to prove several other Positive Claims....

Tigerace117 said:
Which is what you have been pushing for.

NOPE. FACTS ARE FACTS. Unborn humans cannot possibly qualify as persons, and therefore don't deserve any of the rights normally assigned to persons.

Tigerace117 said:
You have repeatedly called them "mere animals".

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE. And I'm still waiting for you to prove the Positive Claim that they are something more than merely animals. WELL???

Tigerace117 said:
You being unable to remember your own words do not change them.

I AM QUITE CONSISTENT IN WHAT I WRITE (excepting when I accidentally leave out a relatively important word, like "biologically" mentioned above). And what of your own consistency problem? Like promoting nuclear war while opposing abortion?

Tigerace117 said:
No, your opinion supports you(obviously).

FACTS SUPPORT ME, ALSO. Denying Facts, or telling Stupid Lies about Facts, changes nothing.

Tigerace117 said:
You simply can't handle the fact that....well.....it's not a fact.

YET ANOTHER CLAIM, UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. Why should anyone believe you?

FutureIncoming · Jul 30, 2017

Tigerace117 said:
Your frantic ranting and raving

YOUR MERE UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS ARE STILL WORTHLESS. Tsk, tsk!

Tigerace117 said:
makes it clear that despite your unwillingness to admit the obvious, it remains the obvious.

IF IT WAS SO OBVIOUS, WHY HAVEN'T YOU PRESENTED RELEVANT EVIDENCE? All you have done is made **claims** about what I wrote. You have yet to point out any single actual phrase that Objectively qualifies as "ranting" or "raving". Tsk, tsk!

Tigerace117 said:
It's reasons for doing so are quite relevant.......the agenda is blindingly obvious.

THAT DOESN'T AFFECT THE ARTICLE AT ALL. The article was created independently, and published independently, from whatever agenda you imagine.

Tigerace117 said:
And you again call them "just animals".

FACTS ARE FACTS. I'm still waiting for you to provide the slightest bit of Objectively Verifiable Data that an unborn human, as it is, is more than just a mere-animal entity.

Tigerace117 said:
After what you said last post.

I APOLOGIZE FOR LEAVING OUT THE WORD "biologically". Unborn humans are still 100% mere-animal entities!

Tigerace117 said:
Way to torpedo yourself.

NOPE. Anyone can be in just enough hurry to make a minor/honest imperfection in language-usage.

Tigerace117 said:
Nope, the Nazis believed they have Objectively Measurable Facts on their side.

I DON'T SEE YOU PRESENTING ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR THAT. What exactly was the Nazi definition of "a person"? Remember that humans have been imagining non-human person-class entities for thousands of years, including, for example, angels. Would the Nazi definition of "a person" have excluded angels? What about God? After all, various Religions claim that God created humanity, which obviously means that God has to be NON-human. If only humans can be persons, then God is excluded, see? I ask you once again to look at my Signature, appended to each of my messages.

Tigerace117 said:
Just as you do, they were blinded by ideology.

BRAGGING ABOUT YOURSELF AGAIN, I SEE. It is quite common for abortion opponents to suffer from the ideology of Stupid Prejudice about the word "human". Tsk, tsk!

Tigerace117 said:
And all you have is ranting and raving. Oh, and your opinion.

MORE POSITIVE CLAIMS FROM YOU, STILL UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. Why should those claims be believed?

MEANWHILE, you actually do know what a person truly is. Just Answer this simple Question, to prove it: "If you were visiting a modern well-equipped medical laboratory, and some madman with a machete cut your head off in an attempt to murder you, but rescuers arrived in time, would you want them to save your headless human body, or save your severed head, to save YOU-the-person?" (Note the relevant technology does exist, else no one would be contemplating doing human head transplants.) Even Nazis (if any still exist today) could correctly answer that Question!

"Not good for the girl" ??? "Too risky" ????

year2late

IIJAFM

LaylaWindu

One with the Force

year2late

IIJAFM

LaylaWindu

One with the Force

Tigerace117

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

Tigerace117

Tigerace117

minnie616

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

Tigerace117

Tigerace117

Tigerace117

Brochacholomigo

we live in a society

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming