Page 49 of 71 FirstFirst ... 39474849505159 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 709

Thread: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

  1. #481
    Guru
    HowardBThiname's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    America's Heartland
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,551

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureIncoming View Post
    [part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg#475]


    IN YOUR DREAMS. The word "peer" generally refers to anyone of equal social standing to a specified person. So, if the one who submits a fake article to a fake journal is a con-man, the peers of that author only need to be con-men (or con-women).


    THE TOPIC PARTLY INCLUDES WIKIPEDIA, and it considers published books to be valid sources. Because, supposedly, book-editors weed out the dross.


    NOT WHEN THE TOPIC IS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF CLAIMS MADE, and how to prove it. Propagandists obviously don't want folks to be able to prove that their blatherings are just propaganda. Unscrupulous journals just want to receive high fees for the junk they publish. And researchers making up data for articles just want credit for stuff they didn't actually do. At least SOME well-respected publishers have had their peer-reviewers fooled by deliberately fake articles, which were created expressly to test the actual degree of thoroughness of peer-reviewers. That is, even a real scholar can be lazy, and claim to have done a peer-review, when he didn't actually do more than skim.


    SOUNDS LIKE A BIAS AGAINST ANYONE NEW ENTERING THE SYSTEM. Obviously a new researcher trying to publish her first paper isn't a widely recognized expert yet!


    ACCESSIBILITY STILL MATTERS. Paywalls interfere, remember?


    NOT ALL RESEARCHERS IN BIOLOGICAL MATTERS ARE MEDICAL DOCTORS. Some are the academic type of doctor, and need no "license".


    OKAY.


    NOW YOU ARE IGNORING WHAT I WROTE ABOUT THAT. What if the blog contains links to JAMA or PubMed articles, eh? I told you that the purpose of me linking to one of MY blog articles is to save space here (mostly because messages here are limited to 5000 characters, and rather often that is not enough to accommodate all the relevant information). Plus, such a link allow some reduction in repeating myself.
    Your first emboldened statement is incorrect, so the rest of your post is moot.

    As defined by Merriam Webster:

    Definition of peer review
    :a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field
    — peer-review play \ˈpir-ri-ˈvyü\ transitive verb
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../peer%20review
    "Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude." ~ Thomas Jefferson

  2. #482
    Guru
    HowardBThiname's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    America's Heartland
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,551

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureIncoming View Post
    [part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg#475]


    I CAN AGREE WITH THAT. And I will admit that sometimes I don't bother looking for more than the first news source containing a reference I want. At least I know enough to avoid "The Onion" as a source!


    NOT JUST THE ABORTION DEBATE. Identifying good or bad sources is relevant to any Debate. The global warming Debate proves that some folks are willing to deliberately inject distorted data into the Debate --which means one should be on the lookout for that in the abortion Debate, too. Like this, for example (because rape is known to sometimes cause unwanted pregnancies, leading to the seeking of abortions).


    IS THE NOTION ORIGINAL WITH ME? Yes. DID I BOTHER TO SEND IT TO ANY JOURNAL AT ALL? No. Because this Abortion Debate Forum, where it was originally posted, and my blog, were the only places I was interested in posting it. Lack of formal publication in no way causes an idea to be defective!


    ARE YOU A CREDIBLE EXPERT IN THE ABORTION DEBATE? No. No one is recognized by both sides as a credible expert, else the matter would have been resolved years ago. Everyone involved has opinions, and the large majority of those involved have not included ALL the relevant data in their arguments. However, my blog specifically exists to hold as much relevant data as I can find, for anyone to have easy access to it. I'm quite sure I'm more expert than you on this topic. Especially since you seem to be so intent on Denying Facts about the placenta!


    MAYBE NOT ALL OF THEM. But some certainly are, because I do occasionally find useful PubMed and NIST and other quality sources.


    SEE ABOVE. I haven't been advertising my work to any journals.


    SEE ABOVE. "original", remember? And relatively recent, too. Most folks simply don't know about it yet. AND you also appear to be misinterpreting something about the placenta argument. I stated that the placenta is what makes an unborn human VERY different from a recently-born human. How does that translate into a "reason for aborting"???

    All of this is just a rehashing of your previous arguments and it still fails to meet the burden of proof for being reputable.

    Sorry -- your placenta theory is going nowhere.

    Unless you have something new, not a regurgitation of the same debunked theories, we have nothing left to discuss. Do we?
    "Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude." ~ Thomas Jefferson

  3. #483
    Objectivist
    FutureIncoming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of the Cowardly Leaders
    Last Seen
    09-19-17 @ 09:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,831
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    I'm not saying that natural rights are DERIVED from common sense, I am saying that natural rights are DEDUCED from common sense.
    ERRONEOUSLY. Because of the bias of those doing the deducing. Of course they think they have a way to give themselves something they want!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Those rights that we deduced exist are those that all humans innately know without having to be told.
    FALSE. As explained below. I should remind you that the Natural Default Mental State for humans is basically just a "clever animal" state, much like what gorillas have (only a bit more clever because humans have more brainpower than gorillas). To learn more about that, study the topic of "feral children".

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    All people defend their lives,
    SO DO ALL ANIMALS. Yet there is no such thing as a "right to life" in Nature. Simply because all animals survive at the expense of other life-forms --there would be no killing of any sort (animals would starve) if "right to life" actually existed in Nature. Humans are in no sense more special than cockroaches, with respect to a survival instinct.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    their possessions,
    AGAIN, SEE OTHER ANIMALS. A dog defending a bone is a classic example. But that doesn't mean the dog had a right to the bone in the first place --what of the animal to which the bone originally belonged, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    their family.
    SEE THE BIRDS AND THE BEES. Because an adult queen bee, as soon as it emerges from the pupa stage and the hive-cell in which it matured, often has to kill its own mother to keep surviving. And the cuckoo is a bird that specializes in abandoning its offspring into the nests of other birds, to be raised by those other birds (and when a cuckoo chick hatches, the first thing it does is push all other unhatched eggs out of the nest).

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    We know the right of it without being taught.
    FALSE. Study the topic of feral children! One of the biggest points of Sheer Ignorance of abortion opponents is the Fact that human persons are made, not born. Nature alone merely creates feral children --for over 100,000 years all ancestral members of species H. sapiens were feral. But since they were clever animals, they kept learning and occasionally inventing new things (like taming fire), and they taught those things to their offspring, part of normal mammalian Nurturing. It turns out that young human brains (and bodies) are "plastic" in the sense that they are more adaptable than older brains (and bodies). For example, a young human raised at high altitude will have a larger lung capacity and a higher red-cell count than one raised at sea level. Very roughly, about 60,000 years ago the total amount of stuff that young humans had to learn reached a critical point that caused a bit of extra brain growth, to process that data. THAT'S how the first human persons developed from ordinary human clever-animals. Many of the things you think humans "naturally" know are actually taught during the Nurturing process, that even today USUALLY converts young human animals into human persons.

    TODAY many folks (especially ignorant abortion opponents) ASSUME that human personhood is an inevitable part of normal human growth, yet we have plenty of proof that That Is Not So. Like I wrote above, human persons are made via Nurturing, not born of Nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    The whole point of natural rights in the constitution is that
    ANY CLAIM THAT SUCH EXISTS IS FACTUALLY WORTHLESS. Rights in the Constitution are there ONLY because people put them there, because long experience has taught people that creating such rights can help people get-along with each other better.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    the only true purpose of law is to protect
    NOPE. It is to DEFINE things explicitly. Like what is allowed or what is not allowed. Like how to create other legal definitions (description of Government system in the Constitution).

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    those rights that we already know innately
    FALSE, as explained above.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    we are entitled to because we all have them from out creation without being told.
    FALSE. as explained above.
    Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy was supposedly stomped into irrelevance by WW2; insisting "human=person" fails to Be Prepared for any future with non-human persons in it. So: Define "person" to accurately distinguish one, regardless of how exists, from a mere animal, universally. Why should Stupid Prejudice let our unborn qualify?

  4. #484
    Objectivist
    FutureIncoming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of the Cowardly Leaders
    Last Seen
    09-19-17 @ 09:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,831
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

    Quote Originally Posted by HowardBThiname View Post
    Your first emboldened statement is incorrect,
    FALSE, as explained farther down.

    Quote Originally Posted by HowardBThiname View Post
    so the rest of your post is moot.
    FALSE, as explained below:

    Quote Originally Posted by HowardBThiname View Post
    As defined by Merriam Webster: [snip]
    EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF CON-ARTISTRY ARE CON-ARTISTS. Duuuuuhhhhh!
    Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy was supposedly stomped into irrelevance by WW2; insisting "human=person" fails to Be Prepared for any future with non-human persons in it. So: Define "person" to accurately distinguish one, regardless of how exists, from a mere animal, universally. Why should Stupid Prejudice let our unborn qualify?

  5. #485
    Objectivist
    FutureIncoming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of the Cowardly Leaders
    Last Seen
    09-19-17 @ 09:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,831
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

    Quote Originally Posted by HowardBThiname View Post
    All of this is just a rehashing of your previous arguments
    AS NEEDED AS YOUR IGNORING OF THEM. See below.

    Quote Originally Posted by HowardBThiname View Post
    and it still fails to meet the burden of proof for being reputable.
    AND NOW YOU ARE INJECTING AN UNWARRANTED EXPECTATION. See Rule 5 again. It says nothing about "reputable" It only says "reasonable". As in "can be reasoned". The Facts must be accurate, but reasoning involving those facts can be done by anyone, and reputation is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by HowardBThiname View Post
    Sorry -- your placenta theory is going nowhere.
    GIVE IT TIME. The relevant Facts will still be the same in twenty years. And the rules of logic won't have changed. Nor will the outcome of processing the relevant Facts with logic. YOU might be insistent on "going nowhere", but that just means new things will pass you by. And so I get to reiterate: If There Is Something Actually Erroneous In That Placenta Argument, You Should Be Able To Point It Out (especially if you have any actual expertise in the field!). Yet you have consistently FAILED to do that simple thing....
    Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy was supposedly stomped into irrelevance by WW2; insisting "human=person" fails to Be Prepared for any future with non-human persons in it. So: Define "person" to accurately distinguish one, regardless of how exists, from a mere animal, universally. Why should Stupid Prejudice let our unborn qualify?

  6. #486
    Guru
    HowardBThiname's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    America's Heartland
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,551

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureIncoming View Post

    GIVE IT TIME. The relevant Facts will still be the same in twenty years. And the rules of logic won't have changed. Nor will the outcome of processing the relevant Facts with logic. YOU might be insistent on "going nowhere", but that just means new things will pass you by. And so I get to reiterate: If There Is Something Actually Erroneous In That Placenta Argument, You Should Be Able To Point It Out (especially if you have any actual expertise in the field!). Yet you have consistently FAILED to do that simple thing....
    The erroneous part of your argument is the assumption that it will have any effect on abortion laws. It won't. It's not even in the same realm as the issues lawmakers and citizens find important. That makes it moot as far as being valuable to the legislation of abortion one way or the other.
    "Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude." ~ Thomas Jefferson

  7. #487
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,094

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    I'm not saying that natural rights are DERIVED from common sense, I am saying that natural rights are DEDUCED from common sense.

    Those rights that we deduced exist are those that all humans innately know without having to be told. All people defend their lives, their possessions, their family. We know the right of it without being taught. The whole point of natural rights in the constitution is that the only true purpose of law is to protect those rights that we already know innately we are entitled to because we all have them from out creation without being told.
    The reply prior to this one, which apparently you thought you were being clever by posting, "Common Sense = Natural Rights", which was then followed by the above nonsense that natural rights are "deduced". PAHHHLEAZZE!

    What natural rights in the Constitution?

    Try dwelving in a little reality. Right are derived from "common sense, logic, and moral reasoning by people who had access to centuries of human history that allowed them to formulate rights. AKA Lessons learned via experience and modified over time.

    The Locketarian origin of rights makes for a good fairytale. In other words, why resort to crediting unalienable rights to an origin beyond human constructs?

    And to add insult to injury, your claiming Humans innately know rights. Pardon my Texan, but BS!

    The Human species is innately violent. Human history is inundated with violent behaviors. Humans are the most dangerous species on the planet. It's violent nature is expressing itself on worldwide scale as we speak.

    So spare me that humans are innately filled with good will toward all and organically driven to exercise unalienable human rights.

    Why is it beyond the ability of SOME to grasp rights are devised and granted by human beings called politicians?

    Constitutions and Common Law are used to manage humanity's nature. Rights are sort of a way to appease the citizens. Make us ordinary people believe that we have protection from governments...and to some extent a belief that the people has some power over the grantors of rights. So there's really nothing natural about rights. They didn't come cheap or easy.

    "We risk being the first people in history to have been able to make their illusions so vivid, so persuasive, so realistic that they can live in them." ~~~ Daniel J. Boorstin

  8. #488
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    09-18-17 @ 07:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,697

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Natural rights aren't created by philosophy, they are deduced by philosophy. They are more a scientific law than an invention.


    So philosophers communed with nature and realized "holy ****" we have natural rights?

    Does't work. Man has only had "rights" of any kind for a fraction of the history and even then a good number of countries, one in particular who tries to sell it's brand of freedom through war, who barely practice what the preach.

    Nothing 'natural' about it, but rather a more mature live view; if it was natural we wouldn't have to fight for it.

    As an American that fact should be first and foremost
    "I will kill these people if I have to." Christopher Cantwell, White Nationalist leader, August 2017

  9. #489
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    09-18-17 @ 07:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,697

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    The reply prior to this one, which apparently you thought you were being clever by posting, "Common Sense = Natural Rights", which was then followed by the above nonsense that natural rights are "deduced". PAHHHLEAZZE!

    What natural rights in the Constitution?

    Try dwelving in a little reality. Right are derived from "common sense, logic, and moral reasoning by people who had access to centuries of human history that allowed them to formulate rights. AKA Lessons learned via experience and modified over time.

    The Locketarian origin of rights makes for a good fairytale. In other words, why resort to crediting unalienable rights to an origin beyond human constructs?

    And to add insult to injury, your claiming Humans innately know rights. Pardon my Texan, but BS!

    The Human species is innately violent. Human history is inundated with violent behaviors. Humans are the most dangerous species on the planet. It's violent nature is expressing itself on worldwide scale as we speak.

    So spare me that humans are innately filled with good will toward all and organically driven to exercise unalienable human rights.

    Why is it beyond the ability of SOME to grasp rights are devised and granted by human beings called politicians?

    Constitutions and Common Law are used to manage humanity's nature. Rights are sort of a way to appease the citizens. Make us ordinary people believe that we have protection from governments...and to some extent a belief that the people has some power over the grantors of rights. So there's really nothing natural about rights. They didn't come cheap or easy.



    Well done!

    All I can add is that history has shown that rights are the most frail of philosophical concepts, first to be eroded in times of trial, and last to be restored. In most countries "rights" came over incredible bloodshed, especially in France where the monarchs of the day tried to hang on to their power.
    "I will kill these people if I have to." Christopher Cantwell, White Nationalist leader, August 2017

  10. #490
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,755

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    The reply prior to this one, which apparently you thought you were being clever by posting, "Common Sense = Natural Rights", which was then followed by the above nonsense that natural rights are "deduced". PAHHHLEAZZE!
    Sorry, is it going over your head?

    What natural rights in the Constitution?
    The US Constitution was written as a white list of limited government authority to protect the rights of US citizens. The purpose for this was detailed in the Declaration of Independence.

    Try dwelving in a little reality. Right are derived from "common sense, logic, and moral reasoning by people who had access to centuries of human history that allowed them to formulate rights. AKA Lessons learned via experience and modified over time.

    The Locketarian origin of rights makes for a good fairytale. In other words, why resort to crediting unalienable rights to an origin beyond human constructs?
    Because believing the source of rights is a governmental power is how you end up with dictatorships since those of you who subscribe to your particular fairytale have already given your rights away in the process.

    And to add insult to injury, your claiming Humans innately know rights. Pardon my Texan, but BS!
    Oh really... you don't think humans innately know that their lives have value worth protecting, and that other lives have values worth protecting, or that their resources necessary for survival have value worth protecting? Are you going to throw away centuries of evolutionary theory in your pursuit of this fairytale of yours?

    The Human species is innately violent. Human history is inundated with violent behaviors. Humans are the most dangerous species on the planet. It's violent nature is expressing itself on worldwide scale as we speak.
    Indeed they are? Are you arguing that nobody uses violence to protect their rights even in your fairytale? Did I argue that the Revolutionary war didn't happen? You have a natural rights among them are the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You do NOT have a right to my life, liberty or my happiness.

    You seem to have confused rights with wants...

    So spare me that humans are innately filled with good will toward all and organically driven to exercise unalienable human rights.
    You obviously haven't thought your argument through very well, and compound your problems by ascribing arguments to me I haven't made.

    Why is it beyond the ability of SOME to grasp rights are devised and granted by human beings called politicians?
    LOL! Because they are not. Tell me one right you have that you were given by a politician.

    Constitutions and Common Law are used to manage humanity's nature.
    Is slavery moral when it is the law? Slaves are granted no rights by the state, so why would you oppose slavery? The US Constitution endorsed slavery.. was it right? If not, why?

    Rights are sort of a way to appease the citizens.
    False.

    Make us ordinary people believe that we have protection from governments...
    Which we do.

    and to some extent a belief that the people has some power over the grantors of rights. So there's really nothing natural about rights. They didn't come cheap or easy.
    That is a begging the question logical fallacy. The rights never change, only the ruling body's willingness to respect and protect them might.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

Page 49 of 71 FirstFirst ... 39474849505159 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •