How many men have no clue

a reply to: Xtrozero

We need to define the term human then to even address your points.

I am running short on time but we (others, not you) discussed this earlier in the thread. I will see if I can find the relative post later for you.
Short answer:
"Human Being" is the scientific term.
"Person" has more to do with a philosophical and religious meaning.

We also need to understand we end human life all the time within the law and social norms to even people cheering at times.

You and I had (and I believe Redneck) had a round about this.
I believe you asked (paraphrasing here) "what the difference was between someone getting the death penalty, someone who has the plugg pulled...... (there was another example in there, but I can't remember off the top of my head) and abortion was (again, paraphrasing).
I remember my answer was that in all the examples you gave they had a choice that lead to their lives ending.
When it came to abortion they did not.
Except with the case of pulling the plug. In the majority of those cases they have already lost all their remaining ability aka died.
I should have just waited til I had time to pull the links.....

a reply to: Xtrozero

These are the scientific definitions:

Life: a series of self-sustaining chemical reactions that operate together to effect conditions that will continue the self-sustaining chemical processes. This is normally accomplished by both internal and external (reproductive) means.

Human: a species of primate in the mammalia family, wit the scientific name of homo sapiens sapiens.

Being: an instance of a species that operates distinctly from other beings in said species.

All involved cells are alive and human: the sperm cell, the egg cell, the cells which produce sperm cells, the cells that produce egg cells, the zygote, the embryo, the fetus, the child, the adult, the parents, the grandparents... all of it is alive and human. Human life does not start because it never stops.

Only the fertilized egg forward is a human being. Before that, the components are products of the mother and father.

None of that indicates that I believe every fertilized egg cell must be protected at all costs. It's just a scientific framework that serves to specify what exactly is being talked about. It may make some people uncomfortable to use the correct words, but that is just an indication they know something is not right about their position but will not admit it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Quadrivium

Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings - they are not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. They range from the most fundamental - the right to life - to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty.

This is a Utopian fairy tale.

There are no such rights. Nature gives us no "right to life". Food doesn't rain down on us like manna when we're hungry, water doesn't flow to us when we're thirsty. We have no right to walk on someone's property, bath in their pond, make camp and fish their pond, divert their water to our crops. No one has a cosmic responsibility to teach others what they know, to treat their physical maladies or make sure they're free to do whatever makes their day.

Humans don't have any rights that other humans don't grant them, mostly through bargaining. Neither does a zygote or a fetus.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

I am curious as to what connection it has to abortion.

Most abortions are from the poor with most crime coming from demographics too, and if you reduce the percentage of that demographic coming into the world 18 years later you have less adults that may have grown up in dysfunctional situations to see crime as their option. Economist have looked at this.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings - they are not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. They range from the most fundamental - the right to life - to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty.

This is a Utopian fairy tale.

There are no such rights. Nature gives us no "right to life". Food doesn't rain down on us like manna when we're hungry, water doesn't flow to us when we're thirsty. We have no right to walk on someone's property, bath in their pond, make camp and fish their pond, divert their water to our crops. No one has a cosmic responsibility to teach others what they know, to treat their physical maladies or make sure they're free to do whatever makes their day.

Humans don't have any rights that other humans don't grant them, mostly through bargaining. Neither does a zygote or a fetus.

So are you a Sociopath, or do you lean more towards Existential Nihilism?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Humans don't have any rights that other humans don't grant them, mostly through bargaining.

Well, that was easy.

So you do not have reproductive rights any more Sookie. The only reason you had them was others gave them to you. Now they're gone. We re-bargained. Case closed.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

We are not going to stop people from having sex for fun, I hope not anyhow, and the only risk is what we as society create as a social norm, unlike crashing your car that was not created by a social norm.

Of course we're not going to stop people from having sex! I didn't think that even needed to be said; anyone who would think that is seriously hallucinating!

However, the risk is indeed pregnancy. That's not something we developed as a "social norm"... it is what happens when a man and a woman have sex. That's the biological reason for sex in the first place! Yes, it's also a lot of fun, and people do not always want children when they have sex, but that is the biological purpose. All we are discussing is what to do when the pregnancy happens, not whether it should happen.

Crashing my car, on the other hand, is a society-created consequence. We have cars that we use to travel back and forth for social reasons. Nature did not provide us with cars; we came up with those. Nature did set up the whole reproductive thing.

TheRedneck

I don't see the risks the same. One is a risk the other is a consequence that can be either a risk or not. There is no such thing as a good crash, and if someone wants a baby or has a legal abortion I don't see either as a risk from sex. Now make abortions illegal or a mother wants to take a baby to full term when her life is threaten then they become risks.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha


We do? Why? What makes reproductive biology so sacred that an individual can't choose to override it?

Roe V Wade was middle ground, but because people couldn't handle the decisions other people made, that they don't like, it was overturned.

Override to what point? That is the question to answer, isn't it? It doesn't matter if Roe was middle ground, it was done incorrectly from the start. Do it right and we can agree. The SC had no right to make that call, so they stepped outside of their limits in doing so. That is not a pro or con abortion event...

a reply to: Quadrivium

Prove it's a human being. Can it walk? Can it talk? Can it assert rights?

No. It's a parasite.

a reply to: Xtrozero
The only connection between a car crash (like I am likely to have, any time now, while driving down this country road and replying to your post) and abortion is if you crash into another person with the intent of killing them.
But then it wouldn't be an accident, would it

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: VierEyes

The fetus is a parasite until it is old enough to survive on its own outside the body.

Oh, great, two of ya.

M granddaughter was not a parasite! How dare you!

TheRedneck

Another one with the feelz.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Only the fertilized egg forward is a human being. Before that, the components are products of the mother and father.

Is it human, or a human being, or a fertilized egg? It is whatever we say it is.... Do you think something can be biologically human but not be a human being yet?

You are still picking a point. I think in India the use of contraceptives is seen as preventing a human life forming. We have dozen of ways it seems to define a human being, heart beat, able to survive outside the womb, when the sperm hits the egg, 12 weeks, 14 week, with first breath, 2 years after birth.... I can go on as I heard them all.

I'll ask you the same question that others do not answer...

If a woman has sex and forgot to take her pill that day and does the next morning and that pill stops the process with a fertilized egg did she kill a human being?

And even if you say yes is that stage of a human really consequential in the true reality of what it physically is in terms of 1 cell?

originally posted by: VierEyes
a reply to: Quadrivium

Prove it's a human being. Can it walk? Can it talk? Can it assert rights?

No. It's a parasite.

First it can not be anything else but a developing human, I think you need to first come to that understanding. I think there are millions of actual human parasites within society so what does that change by using that term other then to convince only yourself of something like not have regret for your actions. Maybe you all should act like big boys and girls and actually understand you are ending a human from happening and live with it, get on with your life. What you been doing is a copout...

When is it not a parasite, BTW...lol

a reply to: Xtrozero

Can it survive on its own? No.

What does it do? It sucks resources from the woman.

Parasite.

a reply to: Xtrozero

If a woman has sex and forgot to take her pill that day and does the next morning and that pill stops the process with a fertilized egg did she kill a human?

Yes.

She killed a human being. That's the definition.

That's not a condemnation of her actions. She did not know she was killing anything; she could not have known after one day. I find it highly, highly unlikely that the human being she killed was in any way sentient or self-aware. Therefore, I would have a hard time saying she killed a person or that any type of legal or moral action should be taken against her.

And even if you say yes is that stage of a human really consequential in the true reality of what it physically is in terms of 1 cell?

No, I do not believe it is consequential. I would have a hard time proving that it was a person that she killed. It's easy to prove it was a human being, but that's not really the question, is it?

When does a human being transition into a person with all the rights and privileges inherent thereon? That, I believe, is the real question. Many try to say at the moment of birth; I reject that. I believe it happens somewhere between conception and birth, and likely not at the beginning or end of the process.

And I gotta go risk a car crash. BBL.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: VierEyes
a reply to: Quadrivium

Prove it's a human being. Can it walk? Can it talk? Can it assert rights?

No. It's a parasite.

Ah, here we go.....
You, like so many other pro-abortionist, continually confuse "being human" with "human being".

The main difference between human being and being human is that 'human being' is generally defined as being a member of Homo sapiens race, while 'being human' means displaying characteristics that are unique to human beings.

pediaa.com...


We have a language with words.
Words have meaning but only if you use them correctly.

a reply to: Quadrivium

So now you want to play semantics because you can't win any other way. You've gone on and on in this thread and have not advanced your argument one iota.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Override to what point?

To whatever point is necessary to preserve life, limb and liberty. You can shoot an unarmed intruder in your home stealing your TV. Why can't a woman evict an unwelcome pregnancy that threatens her life, limb and/or liberty?

It doesn't matter if Roe was middle ground, it was done incorrectly from the start.

BS. Roe couldn't finish the job, because the case before them was based on a Texas law that violated the Texas Constitution's "right to privacy" clause, which SCOTUS assigned to the 14th Amendment. If it had been a 2nd Amendment case, it would have been a 2nd Amendment ruling, if it had been a 13th Amendment case, of forced servitude, there would have been a 13 Amendment ruling.

Perhaps Roe should never have given anything to the states at all and left all abortion matters up to a woman and her doctor. Maybe that's where Roe went wrong.

The SC had no right to make that call

SCOTUS had no right to call abortion "the taking of a 'life'", since the unborn and fetal life are not protected in the Constitution, while the lives of "person's born" are.

a reply to: TheRedneck

So you do not have reproductive rights any more Sookie. The only reason you had them was others gave them to you. Now they're gone. We re-bargained.

Yep, that the gist of it. The only rights we have are the ones we take, sometimes by force.

Or maybe you think there really are inalienable rights, granted by a creator?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Xtrozero

The only connection between a car crash (like I am likely to have, any time now, while driving down this country road and replying to your post) and abortion is if you crash into another person with the intent of killing them.
But then it wouldn't be an accident, would it

Still don't see it. 100% of people will say a crash is wrong 50% or less will say an abortion is wrong. You are establishing your own right and wrong rules here, so do I need to follow the rules you seem to make?