Iceland is close to eradicating their country of Down Syndrome!

FutureIncoming · Aug 20, 2017

Bucky said:
My claims are not stupid.

THEY ARE STUPID WHEN THEY ARE NOT ACCURATE. And that is what you have done, LIE about what I have actually stated.

Bucky said:
I know for a fact you believe a fetus has the ability to control its host's mind.

YOU CANNOT FIND ONE SINGLE MESSAGE OF MINE IN WHICH I HAVE MADE THAT STATEMENT. I'm aware that by infusing addictive and mind-altering substances an unborn human can AFFECT its host's mind, but that is not the same thing as "controlling" it.

Bucky said:
You have been spewing this parasite crap for a long time.

FACTS ARE FACTS. Actions speak louder than words. If it acts like a duck (and so on) ...

Bucky said:
A fetus and a mother work in concert with each other

MOSTLY FALSE. When a blastocyst invades the womb, it starts producing hormones that command the mother's body to do various things --like postpone the next menstruation cycle, and construct part of the placenta. The woman's mind is not involved in those purely biological commands and responses. The "concert" is orchestrated by the unborn human, not the mother.

Bucky said:
while a parasite and its host work against each other.

NATURE IS FULL OF VARIATIONS ON THE THEME, FROM PURELY PARASITIC TO PURELY SYMBIOTIC. Pregnancy is much more a parasitic than symbiotic relationship, and that is Objectively Measurable Fact. DO keep in mind that it doesn't matter to an unborn human where it implants in a woman's body; it will still do what it does for its own benefit, regardless of the consequences to the woman. That's why ectopic pregnancies are both possible and often fatal.

Bucky said:
A fetus does not assault its host.

FALSE. Even before becoming a fetus, the blastocyst commits assault by invading the tissues of the womb.

Bucky said:
That is the most ludicrous statements ever made on dp.

FACTS ARE FACTS. I care not-at-all that you don't like Objectively Verifiable Facts that prove abortion opponents have been blathering nonsense for decades.

Bucky said:
It is clear to me you are backtracking your parasite statemnt.

ONLY IF YOU CAN FIND A MESSAGE FROM ME SAYING WHAT YOU LYINGLY CLAIMED I ORIGINALLY STATED. Except you won't. I know what I've posted! Your misrepresenting what others write is typical for many abortion opponents (goes hand-in-hand with Fact-Denial).

Bucky said:
Again, you were called out for your bizzarre view on science and nature.

IRRELEVANT. Only Facts matter. And they support the pro-choice side of the Overall Abortion Debate. There is absolutely nothing that supports opposition to abortion in this day-and-age.

Bucky said:
Are you related to Ron L Hubbard?

NO.

Removable Mind · Aug 20, 2017

cpwill said:
Actually, yes.

Your answer isn't congruent our nature. But you'll claim that it is because we live in a society that will ensure the welfare of children by making them wards of the state when their own parents neglect, abuse, or abandon them in order to give them basic needs.

There's a world that exists that isn't as near as pristine as the picture that you're trying top paint. You subscribe to quantity of children born rather than the quality of life of children. America does have a bit more civility and values that other major nations, but humans still aren't the benevolent, caring, affectionate creatures that you make them out to be when it comes to raising their young.

cpwill · Aug 20, 2017

Removable Mind said:
Your answer isn't congruent our nature. But you'll claim that it is because we live in a society that will ensure the welfare of children by making them wards of the state when their own parents neglect, abuse, or abandon them in order to give them basic needs.

There's a world that exists that isn't as near as pristine as the picture that you're trying top paint. You subscribe to quantity of children born rather than the quality of life of children. America does have a bit more civility and values that other major nations, but humans still aren't the benevolent, caring, affectionate creatures that you make them out to be when it comes to raising their young.

On the contrary - we pay large sums of money in our social safety net precisely because we do care about quality of life. You mention that we provide shelter, food, clothing, and schooling for orphans or those whose parents are otherwise unable to care for them. We also have CHIP, SNAP, EITC, etc. so on and so forth - all of which are tilted towards low income families with children.

The idea that a child is not deserving of rights unless it is raised by parents to act in accordance with good social behavior is antithetical to our founding creed - it is a bastardized version of the same argument people made when wiping out or otherwise atrociously abusing the "uncivilized" populations of poorer sections of the world.

cpwill · Aug 20, 2017

Bucky said:
FutureIncoming, the arbiter of false sci-fi narratives. :lamo

The fetus' are out to takeover their hosts? Watch out ladies! Your baby is a killer!

:giggle1:

And also at risk of being a urinator.

But only when they urinate on you - urinating in you doesn't count because reasons.

:roll:

You really can't make this stuff up. I'm tempted to ask him if NASA is a conspiracy to hide the fact that the earth is flat.

cpwill · Aug 20, 2017

FutureIncoming said:
NOT A NEED. It is quite deliberate, and this is the reason why. I never use this particular writing style when posting stuff under my real name.

....if you are deliberately making yourself sound like an unhinged fool on the internet in order to hide yourself from the NSA.....

....well, I have to give it to you. You are succeeding in your goals.

YOUR MERE CLAIMS ARE WORTHLESS UNLESS SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE. So far the only "evidence" you have offered is to lie about the placenta, comparing it to a feeding tube.

It is a feeding tube - that's it's function. Which is why, for example, when premies are born, we sometimes have to replicate it.

Regardless, the use of a feeding tube no more makes someone not human, or not a child, than living in a protected environment such as a womb or an ICU does.

FALSE; I've presented quite a bit of Objectively Verifiable Data to support my position.

You appear to be googling your phrase and grabbing one of the first links to come up. Thus far, I haven't seen much that actually backs the claims you are trying to make, and quite a lot that seems to depend on... well, let's just say you seem to be coming from quite the information bubble, where no one ever challenges the kooky/extreme versions of the tribe.

SUPPORTS THE CLAIM THAT THEY CAN BE WILLING TO DEHUMANIZE OTHER WOMEN.

All people's have proven willing to dehumanize others whose rights they then wish to take away. In the modern debate over abortion, that is done by those who wish to deny personhood to unborn children by coming up with ever-more-ridiculous "tests" of "real" individuality :roll:

To insist that a woman must carry a pregnancy to term is to insist that that woman must be a slave that acts like a toilet.

As an analyst, one of the things I was trained to look for was whether or not sources recognized trade-offs and downsides to their own argument. I absolutely agree that the pro-life position of banning abortion (in my case, with the exception of true risk-to-life-of-mother) restrains the liberties of the parents. Just as current laws already do with born children.

There is no escaping FACTS about taking away Choice.

That's ironic.

You know what one of the lead white southern argument in favor of slavery was? "They're not as fully developed (civilized) people as you and I, and we need black slavery in order to maintain white freedom." Also featured were appeals to individual autonomy (mostly in the form of property rights), and appeals to the quality-of-life of the slaves (it was held that, should they be freed, their quality of life would suffer).

So I'm not really positive you want to bring up one of the previous times people on my side were able to defeat the arguments of the people on yours.

cpwill said:
cpwill said:

Your fallacy is Red Herring

Click to expand...

FALSE. The world is full of things that are connected in various ways to each other. Understanding the Big Picture depends on paying attention to as many connections as possible. But abortion opponents prefer to cherry-pick their data

....bro, you just went on a rant about CO2 and the Ozone. In an abortion debate.

and that is why they have no chance of winning the Overall Abortion Debate.

Human-on-Human violence rates is reducing over time as our empathy increases. We're going to win the abortion debate.

And, then, ironically, liberals will start accusing conservatives of having been pro-abortion, and conservatives will have to defend the America of today against future liberals by explaining that you-have-to-understand-the-times.

The FACT that persons are made (via Nurture), not born (via Nature), is something no abortion opponent ever considered before, so intent were they on insisting that human biology was inextricably linked to personhood. NOPE!! And, "tsk, tsk!"

:shrug: you are wrong, and this is not a fact at all. Our rights are in no way stripped away if we are raised poorly.

Removable Mind · Aug 20, 2017

cpwill said:
On the contrary - we pay large sums of money in our social safety net precisely because we do care about quality of life. You mention that we provide shelter, food, clothing, and schooling for orphans or those whose parents are otherwise unable to care for them. We also have CHIP, SNAP, EITC, etc. so on and so forth - all of which are tilted towards low income families with children.

The idea that a child is not deserving of rights unless it is raised by parents to act in accordance with good social behavior is antithetical to our founding creed - it is a bastardized version of the same argument people made when wiping out or otherwise atrociously abusing the "uncivilized" populations of poorer sections of the world.

Spend a week hanging out at your local CPS Court.

There's a much larger picture. Every year near 10 million kids under 5 suffer and die from PREVENTABLE causes. But those kids don't seem to matter. Children in India are abandoned by he 1000's, at early ages who live with in the street and landfills. The same in South America and in Africa - incredible problems that children endure.

So yeah, pump'em out by the 10's of thousands and watch human nature at work - the outpouring of love and compassion.

CP, in thinking that we live on different planets.

cpwill · Aug 20, 2017

Removable Mind said:
Spend a week hanging out at your local CPS Court.

And see all the resources and trouble we spend on that?

Doesn't really make your case for you.

There's a much larger picture. Every year near 10 million kids under 5 suffer and die from PREVENTABLE causes.

Which, of course, is orders of magnitudes down from what it used to be.

But, then, I have to ask, why do you care?

But those kids don't seem to matter.

OTC; they matter so much, people and nations dedicate their resources to trying to save them, and reduce their suffering.

Children in India are abandoned by he 1000's, at early ages who live with in the street and landfills. The same in South America and in Africa - incredible problems that children endure.

Yes - poverty is brutal, compared to our current, plushy, first-world lifestyle.

But, if people don't care about kids, then A) why do you care and B) why are there so many charitable organizations and government programs designed around reaching out to and helping kids in tough circumstances?

CP, in thinking that we live on different planets.

:shrug: well, I live on the one where human beings are broken and social animals.

Thoreau72 · Aug 20, 2017

I think he made his case...

Bucky · Aug 20, 2017

Thoreau72 said:
I think he made his case...

FutureIncoming, here is some of his work:

Just imagine a flying saucer landing in front of you, and an extraterrestrial nonhuman alien entity emerging and politely asking you for directions to, say the Alpha Centauri star system. You might not know the answer to that question, but would the alien qualify as a person? If so, why? Because whatever generic characteristics that particular nonhuman possesses, that lets you identify it as a person and not as an unusual type of animal, unborn humans don't have those characteristics. Measurably animal-level are the minds they do have!

Interesting character. You should read his thoughts on cannibalism.

Removable Mind · Aug 20, 2017

cpwill said:
And see all the resources and trouble we spend on that?

Doesn't really make your case for you.

Which, of course, is orders of magnitudes down from what it used to be.

But, then, I have to ask, why do you care?

OTC; they matter so much, people and nations dedicate their resources to trying to save them, and reduce their suffering.

Yes - poverty is brutal, compared to our current, plushy, first-world lifestyle.

But, if people don't care about kids, then A) why do you care and B) why are there so many charitable organizations and government programs designed around reaching out to and helping kids in tough circumstances?

:shrug: well, I live on the one where human beings are broken and social animals.

Denial works for a lot of people. Your compassion for the yet to be born over that of the born is noted.

cpwill · Aug 20, 2017

Removable Mind said:
Denial works for a lot of people. Your compassion for the yet to be born over that of the born is noted.

It does indeed - especially if we have a vested interest. In this case, a desire to maximize autonomy for women creates an incentive to deny or degrade the humanity of unborn children.

But you are wrong to suppose that compassion for unborn children means one lacks compassion for born ones. If anything, compassion for the one mutually reinforces compassion for the other.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Removable Mind · Aug 20, 2017

cpwill said:
It does indeed - especially if we have a vested interest. In this case, a desire to maximize autonomy for women creates an incentive to deny or degrade the humanity of unborn children.

But you are wrong to suppose that compassion for unborn children means one lacks compassion for born ones. If anything, compassion for the one mutually reinforces compassion for the other.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

You've voiced your opinion - I'm not wrong - it's clear that you value the yet to born more than the born.

The majority of conceptions are born. And I opine that a lot that are shouldn't be.

Also abortion has zero impact on the world's positive population growth. And add every other for of deaths humans experience. They don't slow human reproduction down.

I'm going to end my side of this exchange because it's obvious where you place the value priorities on the various stages of human development. "I adamantly disagree."

But I just realize that I don't ever remember "why you truly revere a yet to be born as you do." Do you believe that conceptions are linked to a divine cause or plan?

cpwill · Aug 20, 2017

Removable Mind said:
You've voiced your opinion - I'm not wrong - it's clear that you value the yet to born more than the born.

On the contrary; I attempt to value human rights equally. That's why I maintain an exception in cases where the life of the mother is truly in question: one person's right to life against another's.

The majority of conceptions are born. And I opine that a lot that are shouldn't be.

:shrug: I think that's as offensive at looking at a school full of lower income kids and wishing some of them were dead.

Also abortion has zero impact on the world's positive population growth.

This is ludicrously incorrect. In the US alone the population is 60 million less than it otherwise would be.

But I just realize that I don't ever remember "why you truly revere a yet to be born as you do." Do you believe that conceptions are linked to a divine cause or plan?

I think that all of us have the Imago Dei; we are all His creations.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Removable Mind · Aug 20, 2017

cpwill said:
On the contrary; I attempt to value human rights equally. That's why I maintain an exception in cases where the life of the mother is truly in question: one person's right to life against another's.

:shrug: I think that's as offensive at looking at a school full of lower income kids and wishing some of them were dead.

This is ludicrously incorrect. In the US alone the population is 60 million less than it otherwise would be.

I think that all of us have the Imago Dei; we are all His creations.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Thanks. I still disagree with most of your beliefs. Guess there's nothing else left for me add to our exchanges.

AGENT J · Aug 20, 2017

cpwill said:
On the contrary; I attempt to value human rights equally. That's why I maintain an exception in cases where the life of the mother is truly in question: one person's right to life against another's.

If so you should be prochoice with limits then.
I agree all we can do is attempt to be equal, because theres factually not such thing as equal in this case, we all just pick different lines in the sand its its why my line is viability. I pick viability because its scientific and a factual point of reference (within a week). its also basically in the middle of pregnancy, i really cant see how to get more fair and attempt for equality than that. I also pick viability because one of them, the baby or the woman, will be treated as not equal where ever the line is and I could never make that the woman when its VS a baby that is not viable and may never become viable.

ANyway besides trying for equal somethign else stuck out in your post, you said "life of the mother is truly in question" ? how do you determine that, based on what besides what would seem like truly subjective standards and flat out guessing.

Removable Mind · Aug 20, 2017

AGENT J said:
If so you should be prochoice with limits then.
I agree all we can do is attempt to be equal, because theres factually not such thing as equal in this case, we all just pick different lines in the sand its its why my line is viability. I pick viability because its scientific and a factual point of reference (within a week). its also basically in the middle of pregnancy, i really cant see how to get more fair and attempt for equality than that. I also pick viability because one of them, the baby or the woman, will be treated as not equal where ever the line is and I could never make that the woman when its VS a baby that is not viable and may never become viable.

ANyway besides trying for equal somethign else stuck out in your post, you said "life of the mother is truly in question" ? how do you determine that, based on what besides what would seem like truly subjective standards and flat out guessing.

OJ, you have to understand that abortion isn't about pro-choice or pro-life. We obviously see that there are people everywhere who believe conception is the result of a divine act & consequently believe that a zygote is holy. Now one can't argue with those who believe everything in the universe is divine in some way? There's only one answer to everything. So for people who don't subscribe to that particular belief are nothing less than genetic mutants who are lost in an abyss of eternal doom for not believing zygotes are holy. Oh well? :shrug:

year2late · Aug 20, 2017

cpwill said:
And also at risk of being a urinator.

But only when they urinate on you - urinating in you doesn't count because reasons.

Get a room you two!:lamo

#cleanupafteryourself

FutureIncoming · Aug 21, 2017

[part 1 of 3, in reply to Msg#230]

cpwill said:
It is a feeding tube - that's it's function.

IGNORANTLY FALSE. The placenta is an organ associated with obtaining nutrients AND oxygen, plus it is an organ associated with getting rid of toxic biowates (including CO2), PLUS, it is an organ that directly and significantly affects the biology of the unborn human's hostess via hormones (such as preventing the next menstruation event, and, later, triggering birth-labor). The umbilical cord is the feeding tube!!! (and air-supply tube, and waste-disposal tube) The "modus operandi" for survival, of an unborn human is **so** different from the modus operandi of survival for a born human, that to claim an unborn human is equal to an ordinary child is like claiming a caterpillar is equal to a butterfly.

cpwill said:
Which is why, for example, when premies are born, we sometimes have to replicate it.

WE ACTUALLY CAN'T QUITE DO THAT YET. Because once the placenta is discarded, it is gone. A preemie's lungs are forced into service before they are properly ready for the task --and therefore a great many preemies have breathing problems all their lives --plus other problems. They are NOT equal to ordinary full-term children (except in the eyes of the Law)!

cpwill said:
Regardless, the use of a feeding tube no more makes someone not human,

WHY DO YOU KEEP BLATHERING ABOUT THAT? I've not made any claim denying the human-ness of any human entity!

cpwill said:
or not a child, than living in a protected environment such as a womb or an ICU does.

YOU KEEP BLATHERING AS IF A FEEDING TUBE IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE. But you can make oodles of measurements finding many differences between unborn humans and ordinary children. The existence of the placenta is the most obvious, but there are a bunch of others.
ACCORDING TO THE IDIOCY YOU'VE SPOUTED, a zygote is equal to an ordinary child. Which Logically Means a cuticle cell is equal to an ordinary child, too. (Because neither cell can accomplish a particular goal without some Active External Help.)

cpwill said:
You appear to be googling your phrase and grabbing one of the first links to come up. Thus far, I haven't seen much that actually backs the claims you are trying to make,

BE MORE SPECIFIC, PLEASE. Generic denunciation is just an excuse to avoid admitting you don't actually have a valid counter-argument.

cpwill said:
and quite a lot that seems to depend on... well, let's just say you seem to be coming from quite the information bubble, where no one ever challenges the kooky/extreme versions of the tribe.

BE MORE SPECIFIC, PLEASE. Generic denunciation is just an excuse to avoid admitting you don't actually have a valid counter-argument.

cpwill said:
All people's have proven willing to dehumanize others whose rights they then wish to take away.

TRUE. NOW PROVE THIS: That unborn humans actually have rights that could be taken away. DO keep in mind that there is no such thing as "right to life" in Nature --it is purely a concept created by persons for encouraging persons to get-along with each other.

cpwill said:
In the modern debate over abortion, that is done by those who wish to deny personhood to unborn

FIRST PROVE THEY HAVE PERSONHOOD. Denial cannot exist without something else existing, which might be denied! For example, the Earth has to be round before one can deny it is round. To make a claim of either roundness or flatness in complete ignorance of all data is basically to make an unsupported claim, not to make a denial. Therefore, the SUPPORTED claim must be made, that an unborn human is a person, before anyone can deny that claim. And I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to provide some Objectively Verifiable Data supporting the claim that an unborn human qualifies as a person.

cpwill said:
children by coming up with ever-more-ridiculous "tests" of "real" individuality

IMAGINE YOU WERE ABOARD A FUTURE STARSHIP EXPLORING THE GALAXY, looking for habitable worlds. What tests would you employ detect whether or not that world was already inhabited by persons? And why cannot those same tests be applied to humans? Stupid Prejudice???

FutureIncoming · Aug 21, 2017

[part 2 of 3, in reply to Msg#230]

cpwill said:
As an analyst, one of the things I was trained to look for was whether or not sources recognized trade-offs and downsides to their own argument. I absolutely agree that the pro-life position of banning abortion (in my case, with the exception of true risk-to-life-of-mother) restrains the liberties of the parents. Just as current laws already do with born children.

PUTTING "SPIN" ON ENSLAVEMENT AND DEHUMANIZATION does not make the anti-abortion position anything other than pro-enslavement and pro-dehumanization of pregnant women.

cpwill said:
That's ironic.

NOT IRONIC. Because you are comparing apples to oranges (in quote below). No unborn human is developed enough to have any degree of power-of-choice. It is basically just a mere-animal entity, equivalent to a biological robot, a pure stimulus-response machine. You cannot take away something from it that it does not have!!!

cpwill said:
You know what one of the lead white southern argument in favor of slavery was? "They're not as fully developed (civilized) people as you and I,

THE ERROR OF EQUATING SUBJECTIVE STUFF WITH PERSONHOOD. Not until dolphins began getting seriously researched did anyone try to study personhood truly Objectively. Prior to that, all claims about personhood were purely Subjective, and began when various primitive tribes called themselves "The People" and everyone else "animals". Looks like today's "white supremacists" haven't become one whit more socially advanced ("civilized") since those ancient times.

cpwill said:
and we need black slavery in order to maintain white freedom."

A STUPID LIE. Slavery had been on a gradual decline for hundreds of years for purely economic reasons, beginning with the invention of the horse collar about 1000 C.E (with a proper collar to put the load on its shoulders, a horse can do 10 times the work of a man while only eating 5 times as much as a man). Cotton production promoted slavery only because of the nimbleness of human fingers --but now we have machines that can efficiently process cotton.

ALSO, NOTE THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN THAT ARGUMENT and claiming a pregnant woman must be enslaved to maintain the freedom of an unborn human. Looks like abortion opponents haven't socially advanced one whit since the days of slavery! Except that abortion opponents are even more idiotic, since unborn humans are nothing more than mere animals (while slave-owners were persons) --still waiting for you to prove that unborn humans qualify as persons deserving freedom and other rights.

cpwill said:
Also featured were appeals to individual autonomy (mostly in the form of property rights),

SINCE UNBORN HUMANS ARE ANIMALS, THEY CAN BE OWNED. Just like pets. The other way (unborn humans owning pregnant women) is as nonsensical as an abortion opponent insisting a pregnancy must be carried to term.

cpwill said:
and appeals to the quality-of-life of the slaves (it was held that, should they be freed, their quality of life would suffer).

AS IF THEY NEVER GOT LASHED WITH WHIPS WHILE ENSLAVED. And no one would be doing that if the slaves were freed. In other words, That Argument Is Just Another Stupid Lie. And irrelevant to the Overall Abortion Debate, since an unborn human doesn't have a mind capable of appreciating EITHER its life inside the womb, OR a life outside the womb.

cpwill said:
So I'm not really positive you want to bring up one of the previous times people on my side were able to defeat the arguments of the people on yours.

NON-SEQUITUR. You are the ones supporting slavery today, not pro-choicers! If "your side" supported slavery in the past, it most certainly did not "defeat the arguments" of its opponents. If "your side" opposed slavery in the past, why have you switched to the losing side now?

FutureIncoming · Aug 21, 2017

[part 3 of 3, in reply to Msg#230]

cpwill said:
....bro, you just went on a rant about CO2 and the Ozone. In an abortion debate.

AND YOU IGNORED THE REASON FOR BRINGING IT UP. I stated in Msg #201 "lots of laws are based on reasonable grounds", and mentioned the Ozone Hole because it is now closing thanks to a reasonable law. The Paris Accord regarding CO2 is another reasonable thing (a treaty instead of a law), getting ignored by the same greedy/idiotic political conservatives who oppose abortion. There Was No Red Herring; Everything Connects.

cpwill said:
Human-on-Human violence rates is reducing over time as our empathy increases.

A NICE SENTIMENT BUT FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED. Because, as usual, the abortion opponent is using cherry-picked data, and ignoring the Big Picture. Human population is increasing faster than empathy. The more humans in the world, the more total of human selfishness there is in the world --and this will be just one result of that.

cpwill said:
We're going to win the abortion debate.

NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. One of the biggest arguments against abortion has been the Outright Lie that the world is not overpopulated with humans, that we need more people. That Lie is getting exposed for what it is Right Now (see above link about fish), and the exposure of that Lie will be reinforced as other important resources turn out to be inadequate. One of the biggest-of-all idiocies of abortion opponents is their insistence that more mouths-to-feed must get born, while doing absolutely nothing helpful, to ensure those extra mouths can be fed.

cpwill said:
And, then, ironically, liberals will start accusing conservatives of having been pro-abortion, and conservatives will have to defend the America of today against future liberals by explaining that you-have-to-understand-the-times.

IN YOUR DREAMS. We are heading straight for a Malthusian Catastrophe, a genocide of up to 99% of the entire human species, orchestrated by abortion opponents acting as just described by me (with links) above. If political conservatives get hunted down and shot-on-sight for being worse than Nazis, during the Future-Incoming Catastrophe, I know of no reason why they won't have deserved it.

cpwill said:
you are wrong, and this is not a fact at all.

AGREED; your statement that it is not a fact that I am wrong is completely correct!

cpwill said:
Our rights are in no way stripped away if we are raised poorly.

I DO NOT CONFUSE THE LAW ABOUT PERSONHOOD WITH THE SCIENCE ABOUT PERSONHOOD. Per the science, it is impossible for any human to qualify as a person for about 2-3 years after conception (this one test for self-awareness can't be passed for about 18 months after birth). Per the Law, all humans regardless of capabilities are Arbitrarily assigned personhood at birth. "if raised poorly" is totally irrelevant to that Arbitrary Law. Prior to birth, the Law is totally consistent with the science. Any attempt to change the Law might backfire, because lawmakers **tend** to pay attention to relevant scientific data when crafting new laws. You might see the legalization of infanticide instead of the banning of abortion! Therefore I recommend all abortion opponents to let sleeping dogs lie, and shut their yaps.

FutureIncoming · Aug 21, 2017

Bucky said:
FutureIncoming, here is some of his work:

I DON'T SEE YOU POINTING OUT A FLAW IN WHAT YOU QUOTED. Which has some similarities to what anyone can normally see in my "signature" appended to all my messages.

Bucky said:
Interesting character. You should read his thoughts on cannibalism.

Q: WHY DID THE TRIBE OF CANNIBALS VALUE HUMAN LIFE?

A: Since there's no refrigeration in the jungle, life keeps the meat fresh longer.

FutureIncoming · Aug 21, 2017

cpwill said:
It does indeed - especially if we have a vested interest. In this case, a desire to maximize autonomy for women creates an incentive to deny or degrade the humanity of unborn [human animals].

BAD LOGIC. There is no need to "deny or degrade" the human-ness of unborn humans. They are what they are, and are nothing more than what they actually are. If you want to make the Positive Claim that they are more than what they actually are, mere-animal entities, then let's see your supporting evidence!

FutureIncoming · Aug 21, 2017

cpwill said:
I attempt to value human rights equally.

AND THAT IS YOUR FUNDAMENTAL ERROR. A cuticle cell is a 100% human entity, but it gets killed by the hundred during ordinary manicures and pedicures. Where is your valuation of the "human rights" for cuticle cells?

A zygote begins its existence with an ovum-fertilization event, and abortion opponents often claim the zygote has personhood and deserves human rights.
A morula begins its existence when a zygote begins dividing, and abortion opponent often claim the morula has personhood and deserves human rights.
A blastocyst begins its existence when a morula escapes the "zona pellucida" that originally surrounded the ovum (and was penetrated by a sperm during fertilization), and abortion opponents often claim that the blastocyst has personhood and deserves human rights.
When a blastocyst implants into a womb, it might then become either of two things, depending on its genetics. It might become a normal embryo, and abortion opponents often claim the embryo has personhood and deserves human rights.
OR the blastocyst might become a hydatidiform mole, and not even abortion opponents claim the hydatidiform mole has personhood, or deserves human rights.

THEREFORE SEE YOUR IRRATIONALITY: Through Perfectly Natural Growth/Development, a zygote that you claim is a person can become a non-person, WITHOUT DYING. Every cell in a hydatidiform mole is as 100% human and 100% alive and has the exact same (defective) DNA as the original zygote that you claim is a person.

FINALLY, consider a brain-dead human adult on full life-support. When actual brain-death has been Verified, a Death Certificate is filled out. The doctors and the scientists and even the lawyers all agree that the person is dead, even though the adult human body is still almost completely alive (except for the dead brain). According to **you** that human body still deserves "human rights" --but according to Actual Reality the life-support plug can be freely pulled almost any time after the Death Certificate is filled out.

REMEMBER: The US Constitution-plus Amendments use the word "person" throughout, and do not use the word "human" even once. They are about person rights, not the Stupidly Prejudiced notion of "human rights"! Which is why fictions such as this one are possible to be "set" in the USA. Human-ness has NOTHING whatsoever to do with rights! And it doesn't need to have anything to do with rights, either.

JayDubya · Aug 22, 2017

Removable Mind said:
OJ, you have to understand that abortion isn't about pro-choice or pro-life. We obviously see that there are people everywhere who believe conception is the result of a divine act & consequently believe that a zygote is holy. Now one can't argue with those who believe everything in the universe is divine in some way? There's only one answer to everything. So for people who don't subscribe to that particular belief are nothing less than genetic mutants who are lost in an abyss of eternal doom for not believing zygotes are holy. Oh well? :shrug:

What a fundamentally deceitful concoction. It's fitting that you would type this hateful nonsense.

I don't think you're morally damaged for genetic reasons; you have free will, you choose to delusionally hate the unborn.

FutureIncoming · Aug 22, 2017

JayDubya said:
What a fundamentally deceitful concoction.

BRAGGING ABOUT NOTIONS OF ABORTION OPPONENTS AGAIN, RIGHT? Like I've pointed out before, they don't have any Objectively Valid argument against abortion. All their arguments are based on deceitfully erroneous precepts of one sort or another (like the notion that "human life is special").

JayDubya said:
It's fitting that you would type this hateful nonsense.

ANOTHER STUPID LIE. It is not nonsensical to describe the nonsense spewed by abortion opponents! Nor is it hateful, when the description of the nonsense spewed by abortion opponents is accurate.

JayDubya said:
I don't think you're morally damaged for genetic reasons;

ALL LIFE IS GENETICALLY PREDISPOSED TOWARD SELFISHNESS (unselfish life-forms went extinct eons ago), and "higher" life is genetically predisposed toward Prejudice that favors their species over other species. Since neither attitude, selfishness nor prejudice, is considered "moral", It Logically Follows that all humans are "morally damaged for genetic reasons". Therefore what actually matters is how much voluntary control humans have over their genetic predispositions. It is quite obvious that abortion opponents exhibit zero control over their Stupid Prejudice about humans. And we have plenty of data about their selfishness, too. Meanwhile, anyone seeking an abortion might be unselfishly saying, "My genes are not so important that they must be passed on to another generation at this time. Let someone else have the resources needed for supporting offspring!" And pro-choicers, of course, have no objection to that!

JayDubya said:
you have free will, you choose to

TELL STUPID LIES. And promote both selfishness and Stupid Prejudice. As explained above.

Iceland is close to eradicating their country of Down Syndrome!

FutureIncoming

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence

cpwill

cpwill

cpwill

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence

cpwill

Thoreau72

Bucky

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence

cpwill

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence

cpwill

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence

year2late

IIJAFM

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

JayDubya

Struggler

FutureIncoming