• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

Removable Mind said:
You are the first person I've seen post that they "believe" or more specifically, agree "natural rights" are a derivative of human common sense. But then you raise "inalienable". How is common sense and inalienable related?
Click to expand...

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

Fearandloathing said:
The concept of "rights" begin where? Who was the first to discuss such "rights" and how were they applied?

I believe it was Plato who first began the thinking which evolved. So it hasn't been "all of history" but a philosophical construct to identify the value of life, or as some put it 'why we are here."

"Rights" were non existent for the main body of humans in the middle ages, the only recognized right belonged to kings and popes. Where were the "rights' of the indigenous people in the 1800's. Women in most of the world have no rights at all.

Rights are not natural, and not universal, they are hard earned with blood. And they can be ****-canned in a New York minute. Should rights be universal? Of course. Will they ever be......................?
Click to expand...

Natural rights aren't created by philosophy, they are deduced by philosophy. They are more a scientific law than an invention.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

GEIxBattleRifle said:
Look through his recent posts in the abortion section and you'll see he is for infanticide.
Click to expand...

Could you please link to one? I haven't seen him say that.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

[part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg#475]

HowardBThiname said:
To be "peer-reviewed" the peers must be scholars.
Click to expand...
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).

HowardBThiname said:
You injected the "book" idea and it is off-topic.
Click to expand...
THE TOPIC PARTLY INCLUDES WIKIPEDIA, and it considers published books to be valid sources. Because, supposedly, book-editors weed out the dross.

HowardBThiname said:
This, too, is off-topic.
Click to expand...
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.

HowardBThiname said:
I ascertain both the quality of the material and the expertise of the author.
Click to expand...
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!

HowardBThiname said:
Know your sources. An article in the JAMA is more likely to be legit than an article on Huffington Post.
Click to expand...
ACCESSIBILITY STILL MATTERS. Paywalls interfere, remember?

HowardBThiname said:
Check out the author -- anyone can claim to be a doctor, but only real doctors appear on state license lists.
Click to expand...
NOT ALL RESEARCHERS IN BIOLOGICAL MATTERS ARE MEDICAL DOCTORS. Some are the academic type of doctor, and need no "license".

HowardBThiname said:
Check the article's sources -- if an author cites an article in JAMA, it will appear on PubMed.
Click to expand...
OKAY.

HowardBThiname said:
If the author's sources turn out to be blog's he's written, unless he's a renown medical scientist, you can be fairly sure the article is fantasy fluff.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg#475]

HowardBThiname said:
Check to see if other reputable publications are running the story. If not, you should suspect its veracity.
Click to expand...
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!

HowardBThiname said:
Don't drag outside topics into this. This is about ascertaining the difference between good and bad sources for the abortion debate -- global warming has no place here.
Click to expand...
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).

HowardBThiname said:
Apply the above criteria to your theory. Is it published in a reputable journal? No.
Click to expand...
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!

HowardBThiname said:
Is the author a credible expert? No.
Click to expand...
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!

HowardBThiname said:
Are the author's sources credible? No.
Click to expand...
MAYBE NOT ALL OF THEM. But some certainly are, because I do occasionally find useful PubMed and NIST and other quality sources.

HowardBThiname said:
Are any reputable journals running the story? No.
Click to expand...
SEE ABOVE. I haven't been advertising my work to any journals.

HowardBThiname said:
We've also ascertained that no reputable pro-choice advocate is using the theory, and we've also determined that the average citizen is unlikely to either care or recognize it based on the surveys done that track the reasons women abort. No woman has ever cited your placenta theory as her reason for aborting -- translation -- it's unlikely to ever get traction outside your posts here or your blog.
Click to expand...
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"???
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

FutureIncoming said:
[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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer review
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

FutureIncoming said:
[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"???
Click to expand...


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

jmotivator said:
I'm not saying that natural rights are DERIVED from common sense, I am saying that natural rights are DEDUCED from common sense.
Click to expand...
ERRONEOUSLY. Because of the bias of those doing the deducing. Of course they think they have a way to give themselves something they want!!!

jmotivator said:
Those rights that we deduced exist are those that all humans innately know without having to be told.
Click to expand...
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".

jmotivator said:
All people defend their lives,
Click to expand...
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.

jmotivator said:
their possessions,
Click to expand...
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?

jmotivator said:
their family.
Click to expand...
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).

jmotivator said:
We know the right of it without being taught.
Click to expand...
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.

jmotivator said:
The whole point of natural rights in the constitution is that
Click to expand...
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.

jmotivator said:
the only true purpose of law is to protect
Click to expand...
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).

jmotivator said:
those rights that we already know innately
Click to expand...
FALSE, as explained above.

jmotivator said:
we are entitled to because we all have them from out creation without being told.
Click to expand...
FALSE. as explained above.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:
All of this is just a rehashing of your previous arguments
Click to expand...
AS NEEDED AS YOUR IGNORING OF THEM. See below.

HowardBThiname said:
and it still fails to meet the burden of proof for being reputable.
Click to expand...
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.

HowardBThiname said:
Sorry -- your placenta theory is going nowhere.
Click to expand...
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....
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

FutureIncoming said:
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....
Click to expand...

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

jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

jmotivator said:
Natural rights aren't created by philosophy, they are deduced by philosophy. They are more a scientific law than an invention.
Click to expand...



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

Removable Mind said:
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.
Click to expand...




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

Removable Mind said:
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!
Click to expand...

Sorry, is it going over your head?

What natural rights in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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!
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

LOL! Because they are not. Tell me one right you have that you were given by a politician. :roll:

Constitutions and Common Law are used to manage humanity's nature.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

False.

Make us ordinary people believe that we have protection from governments...
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

That is a begging the question logical fallacy. The rights never change, only the ruling body's willingness to respect and protect them might.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

FutureIncoming said:
ONLY FOR SOME PUBLICATIONS. Others, not so much. Yes, I know that is why some publications are more-respected than others. Meanwhile, a brand-new publisher might have high standards but no reputation at all, since brand-new. And why would they receive stuff to publish? "Lead times". Other publications are so swamped with papers that authors often have to wait years to see their papers in print. That creates demand for additional publishers. YOU, apparently, would reject anything published by them, even if they did have high standards, simply because of the lack of a reputation. Tsk, tsk!
Click to expand...

You are unfamiliar with the life cycle of scholarly articles. It's months, not years, depending on how much revision the editors require. This can be a painful and lengthy process with your 15-page article reduced to two or three.

The most respected scholarly journals are generally hosted by professional organizations such as IEEE and are peer-reviewed prior to acceptance, but the peer review process is ongoing. You read an article and disagree/find a flaw and write your own article qualifying or correcting the previous research and submit for publication, and etc. This is part of "Publish or perish."

FutureIncoming said:
ALSO, YOU APPEARED TO IGNORE PART OF WHAT I WROTE. I specified "like-minded folks". (note how that qualifies as a definition of "peers") How is it that "white supremacist" stuff gets published? Because some publishers are white supremacists, DUUUHHH! In the Overall Abortion Debate, there are extremists on both sides, and I'm fairly sure you would agree that if I looked hard enough, I could find someone who would formally publish that "placenta argument". While we both know publication would not change any degree of whatever level of Objective Validity that argument might have, it WOULD qualify as having been "approved by peers", the like-minded folks who published it.
Click to expand...

"Like-minded" is not a synonym for "peers." Because of the Internet, anybody can create a blog and publish, thus becoming a "publisher," but you don't want to confuse what are known as "popular" sources as opposed to scholarly ones. (If you Google, click on the first university library link you find; it will explain this and also what are considered "bridge" sources such as Psychology Today.)

Could you direct me to the scholarly journals hosted by white supremacist orgs?

FutureIncoming said:
YET VERY OFTEN RESEARCHERS FORM OPINIONS AND THEN TRY TO FIND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Pretty much what anyone in a Debate does!

BUT HOW CAN YOU TELL IN ADVANCE OF CLICKING THE LINK? Here's part of an article about child development (a good reference for arguments about "personhood") that was originally published in "Scientific American", but now is not easily accessible except via a site that has been claimed to be overly biased. The current source does not affect the original integrity of the article! But would you skip it JUST because of its current location? I found the whole article as part of this document --I have no idea what you might think of THAT location!
Click to expand...

In advance of clicking on a link, look at its beginning and its end. Does it begin with DOI? This is a permanent location for the document. Does it end with .edu or .gov? Click.

Terms to learn: "impact factor" (or JIF), "SJR indicator," and "preprint movement."
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

jmotivator said:
Sorry, is it going over your head?



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.



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.



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?



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...



You obviously haven't thought your argument through very well, and compound your problems by ascribing arguments to me I haven't made.



LOL! Because they are not. Tell me one right you have that you were given by a politician. :roll:



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?



False.



Which we do.



That is a begging the question logical fallacy. The rights never change, only the ruling body's willingness to respect and protect them might.
Click to expand...

We can't go beyond your Declaration of Independence assertion.

That has ZERO to do with your previous comments in which you clearly pointed out NATURAL RIGHTS contained in the United States Constitution.

The DOI was a divorce petition, nothing more. Any of its Locketarian language is not pertinent to the legal context and content of our Constitution. There are no natural rights even implied in the document. Its Amendments weren't connected to any human rights that has a relationship to nature or any scientific derivative.

Our rights are a result of centuries of life experiences that manifested into documents such as the Magna Carta, England's 1689 Bill of Rights, etc. As brilliant as the framers were, they didn't invent the wheel. They modeled our Constitution and rights from a variety of sources that were developed as far back as Rome's systems of government.

Thus all of your opinions about natural rights carry no weight related to this or any other abortion thread.

By the way, the slavery arguments are non sequiturs in abortion discussions. There is absolutely no relationship. No comparable elements to abortion. Slaves were born persons and involved entirely different legal dilemmas.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Removable Mind said:
We can't go beyond your Declaration of Independence assertion.

That has ZERO to do with your previous comments in which you clearly pointed out NATURAL RIGHTS contained in the United States Constitution.

The DOI was a divorce petition, nothing more. Any of its Locketarian language is not pertinent to the legal context and content of our Constitution. There are no natural rights even implied in the document. Its Amendments weren't connected to any human rights that has a relationship to nature or any scientific derivative.

Our rights are a result of centuries of life experiences that manifested into documents such as the Magna Carta, England's 1689 Bill of Rights, etc. As brilliant as the framers were, they didn't invent the wheel. They modeled our Constitution and rights from a variety of sources that were developed as far back as Rome's systems of government.

Thus all of your opinions about natural rights carry no weight related to this or any other abortion thread.
Click to expand...

The Declaration of Independence if the justification for a separation from the English monarchy, and that justification was the crown's opposition to natural rights. The Constitution was written to enshrine a system of government that limits government power in order to defend natural rights from the tyranny of government and the protection of those natural rights are detailed in the first ten Amendments of the Constitution.

By the way, the slavery arguments are non sequiturs in abortion discussions. There is absolutely no relationship. No comparable elements to abortion. Slaves were born persons and involved entirely different legal dilemmas.
Click to expand...

Absolutely false and a weak dodge. The slave argument is a critical point to the proof of natural rights and in stark opposition to your claim that natural rights are a simple human construct. If your point is true that rights are a human construct determine by the state then there is nothing wrong with slavery since the rights of the enslaved are entirely determined by the will of government and that the determination that they have no rights is just. If, however, you accept that a government built on the idea of legal slavery is wrong then you accept the fundamental argument of natural rights as true, that those who are enslaved do NOT derive their writes from the government but instead derive their rights from a fundamental truth that transcends the arbitrary determinations of a state.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

jmotivator said:
The Declaration of Independence if the justification for a separation from the English monarchy, and that justification was the crown's opposition to natural rights. The Constitution was written to enshrine a system of government that limits government power in order to defend natural rights from the tyranny of government and the protection of those natural rights are detailed in the first ten Amendments of the Constitution.



Absolutely false and a weak dodge. The slave argument is a critical point to the proof of natural rights and in stark opposition to your claim that natural rights are a simple human construct. If your point is true that rights are a human construct determine by the state then there is nothing wrong with slavery since the rights of the enslaved are entirely determined by the will of government and that the determination that they have no rights is just. If, however, you accept that a government built on the idea of legal slavery is wrong then you accept the fundamental argument of natural rights as true, that those who are enslaved do NOT derive their writes from the government but instead derive their rights from a fundamental truth that transcends the arbitrary determinations of a state.
Click to expand...

There are no natural rights. There are legislated rights.

Consequently, you are way out of the ballpark in using the examples you have to make your opinions and claims.

You can't produce a shred of evidence on your DOI comment that it had a direct impact in the development of the foundation of our Constitution.

As for your slavery points, they simply have no relationship or relevance to the abortion arguments.

You're still clinging to Locketarian perspectives.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

jmotivator said:
The Declaration of Independence if the justification for a separation from the English monarchy, and that justification was the crown's opposition to natural rights. The Constitution was written to enshrine a system of government that limits government power in order to defend natural rights from the tyranny of government and the protection of those natural rights are detailed in the first ten Amendments of the Constitution.



Absolutely false and a weak dodge. The slave argument is a critical point to the proof of natural rights and in stark opposition to your claim that natural rights are a simple human construct. If your point is true that rights are a human construct determine by the state then there is nothing wrong with slavery since the rights of the enslaved are entirely determined by the will of government and that the determination that they have no rights is just. If, however, you accept that a government built on the idea of legal slavery is wrong then you accept the fundamental argument of natural rights as true, that those who are enslaved do NOT derive their writes from the government but instead derive their rights from a fundamental truth that transcends the arbitrary determinations of a state.
Click to expand...

Removable Mind said:
There are no natural rights. There are legislated rights.

Consequently, you are way out of the ballpark in using the examples you have to make your opinions and claims.

You can't produce a shred of evidence on your DOI comment that it had a direct impact in the development of the foundation of our Constitution.

As for your slavery points, they simply have no relationship or relevance to the abortion arguments.

You're still clinging to Locketarian perspectives.
Click to expand...

Also John Locke claimed in the first and second Treatisis of Government that all men are born free. The key word is born.

John Locke, from The First and Second Treatises of Government

John Locke (1632–1704), the philosopher whose theory of natural rights helped to define the principles of modern democracy, wrote his First Treatise of Government (1690) to refute Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings (written ca. 1638; published 1680). Against Filmer's belief in the absolute, God-given power of the monarch, Locke maintains the natural liberty of human beings; all people are born free, and the attempt to enslave any person creates a state of war (as opposed to the state of nature).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Removable Mind said:
There are no natural rights. There are legislated rights.
Click to expand...

Restating your argument without an ounce or explanation isn't a debate technique you should keep in your quiver.

Consequently, you are way out of the ballpark in using the examples you have to make your opinions and claims.
Click to expand...

Begging the question fallacy.
You can't produce a shred of evidence on your DOI comment that it had a direct impact in the development of the foundation of our Constitution.
Click to expand...

I produced and argument, which is all I need to provide. You provided nothing which is all I need to know of your thought process.

As for your slavery points, they simply have no relationship or relevance to the abortion arguments.
Click to expand...

Your refusal to address the argument is telling. You wish to remain stubbornly ignorant and hold a belief you are incapable of defending.

You're still clinging to Locketarian perspectives.
Click to expand...

You aren't making an argument.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

minnie616 said:
Also John Locke claimed in the first and second Treatisis of Government that all men are born free. The key word is born.
Click to expand...

You guys are tag teaming a straw man.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

jmotivator said:
You guys are tag teaming a straw man.
Click to expand...

You are claiming natural rights for the unborn.

Even John Locke did not think the unborn had natural rights.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

minnie616 said:
You are claiming natural rights for the unborn.

Even John Locke did not think the unborn had natural rights.
Click to expand...


I am arguing the existence of natural rights, absolutely, and that they extend to the unborn, absolutely.

But what YOU are attempting is first to attach my argument to a dependence on John Locke and that due to that fallacious argument on your part, that I must then also accept the opinion of a 17th Century philosopher on when life begins. You are wrong on both counts.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

jmotivator said:
I am arguing the existence of natural rights, absolutely, and that they extend to the unborn, absolutely.

But what YOU are attempting is first to attach my argument to a dependence on John Locke and that due to that fallacious argument on your part, that I must then also accept the opinion of a 17th Century philosopher on when life begins. You are wrong on both counts.
Click to expand...

A right to be free is not the same as right to life.

Our country has never recognized the unborn as having a right to life.

Abortion before quickening was perfectly legal in the Colonial days.

If you talking about a right to be free than abortion allows the woman her freedom.

Forcing Parenthood by not allowing a woman the choice of a legal abortion ( within parameters) or to choose to continue her pregnancy is the very essence of slavery.
Held to a fate against her will.
Deprived of the right to get out of the situation.
Unable to refuse the work involved.
Receiving no compensation.
That's the very essence of slavery.
Click to expand...

Author : Kent Pitman
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom