Mississippi voters have a chance to eliminate women's rights

[Outer Chaosmosis]

Mine, however was not.

So, the fact that you make non-fallacious arguments (if indeed you do so) gives a free pass to those too incompetent or unprincipled to act likewise? If so, then I should say there are many on this forum who would benefit greatly from your continued presence.

[Greater Cabinda]

Did you seriously just argue that pro-abortion people don't realize that their mothers were once pregnant with them?

No wonder the anti-choicers want to pass laws forcing women to see ultrasounds and shit...they seriously believe that we're all as ignorant of basic human biology as they are...

And yet another strawman. Your attempts at obfuscation are getting more and more transparent.

The issue is not an ignorance of biology but the tendency of arguments regarding abortion to become abstract. Seeing an actual ultrasound, or actually contemplating your own possible pre-birth termination (if such a thing even makes sense) makes the issue of abortion concrete. (Or so the argument goes, anyway.)

I remember you. You're the internet psychoanalyst, right?

[UCUMAY]

Mine, however was not.

So, the fact that you make non-fallacious arguments (if indeed you do so) gives a free pass to those too incompetent or unprincipled to act likewise? If so, then I should say there are many on this forum who would benefit greatly from your continued presence.

Don't presume to know my thoughts.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

Don't presume to know my thoughts.

My post makes no such presumption. I am merely drawing conclusions based on your own statements. I was responding to a poster who made a strawman. You jumped in, saying that my objections to that poster's (mis)conduct were somehow invalidated by the fact that you (supposedly) did not make a strawman.

If such is all it takes to invalidate those sorts of objections, you should stick around, redeeming by your very presence all those too incompetent or dishonest to avoid fallacious arguments.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

I remember you. You're the internet psychoanalyst, right?

You remember me? Really? After a few whole hours? This must be quite an accomplishment for you! My heartiest congratulations on your ability to retain basic information for short periods of time.

Now if only we could get you to the basic cognitive level necessary to tell psychoanalysis from what I was doing on the thread you are (indirectly) referencing.

Or could it be that your self-congratulation is, in fact, a veiled ad hom; an attempt to diminish my credibility in this discussion by way of references to my (supposed) conduct in an altogether different one?

[UCUMAY]

Don't presume to know my thoughts.

My post makes no such presumption. I am merely drawing conclusions based on your own statements. I was responding to a poster who made a strawman. You jumped in, saying that my objections to that poster's (mis)conduct were somehow invalidated by the fact that you (supposedly) did not make a strawman.

If such is all it takes to invalidate those sorts of objections, you should stick around, redeeming by your very presence all those too incompetent or dishonest to avoid fallacious arguments.

Then find answers to my argument. That was all I was saying. If you will not allow me (a stranger) to use your organs without your consent to save my life... Why should a pregnant woman be forced to provide life support in the same way? I only ask for consistency in your arguments, which might I mention you seem to lack.

[Bottle]

And yet another strawman. Your attempts at obfuscation are getting more and more transparent.

The issue is not an ignorance of biology but the tendency of arguments regarding abortion to become abstract. Seeing an actual ultrasound, or actually contemplating your own possible pre-birth termination (if such a thing even makes sense) makes the issue of abortion concrete. (Or so the argument goes, anyway.)

I remember you. You're the internet psychoanalyst, right?

He's my new biggest fan. If you want him to participate in any particular thread, just let me know...I'll go post something and he should be following along shortly.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

No, dependency is not universally similar. Social dependency is social dependency; dependent on people. A biomolecular/biochemical dependency is a dependence on a cellular(and in regards to genetic coding a molecular) level to just one other organism/cell/biochemical enviorment. Not the same.

I know they're not the same, but for the purposes of this discussion why draw a line between them?

I am not a philosopher and dont see this as a philosophical debate, that debate regards morality. This one involves you lumping two very differant forms of dependencies into the generalized sense.

Because there's no reason I see not to.

Side note: the incubaters you mentioned cannot carry an embryo to term without implentation into a biological womb(an impossible process after the end of the blastocyst stage, at this time). The incubaters we have now are designed to grow and study early stage embryos but at most times to grow tissue using ES cells. Most cases those are cloned.

I meant hospital incubators that can replicate the function of a womb to some extent if the foetus is born early. UK abortion law is based on the foetus being able to survive outside the womb from 24 weeks onwards; it used to be 28 weeks but technology advanced.

So, can a coma patient or someone on life support be terminated legitimately - and if not, why not? Same logic.

They are not even similar so I wont lump them together, because doing so clouds the line between biological facts and moral bias. The reason not to combine the two is so that we can actually discuss this in a manner that is true and factual.
Hospital incubaters don't mimic the 'function' of the womb(unless you mean that in the crudest most undereducated idea of the enviroment a womb provides), its a life support system with a heat source and smaller tubes.
For the same reason we don't kill a premature birth, at around 26 weeks. Thy are able to survive, individually as a seperate organism, with the aid of life support.
Its called the limit or point of viability, btw, and there is more to that standard than just medical technology.

[UCUMAY]

I know they're not the same, but for the purposes of this discussion why draw a line between them?



Because there's no reason I see not to.



I meant hospital incubators that can replicate the function of a womb to some extent if the foetus is born early. UK abortion law is based on the foetus being able to survive outside the womb from 24 weeks onwards; it used to be 28 weeks but technology advanced.

So, can a coma patient or someone on life support be terminated legitimately - and if not, why not? Same logic.

They are not even similar so I wont lump them together, because doing so clouds the line between biological facts and moral bias. The reason not to combine the two is so that we can actually discuss this in a manner that is true and factual.
Hospital incubaters don't mimic the 'function' of the womb(unless you mean that in the crudest most undereducated idea of the enviroment a womb provides), its a life support system with a heat source and smaller tubes.
For the same reason we don't kill a premature birth, at around 26 weeks. Thy are able to survive, individually as a seperate organism, with the aid of life support.
Its called the limit or point of viability, btw, and there is more to that standard than just medical technology.

Your sentiment is incorrect. Medical technology is the biggest decider of point of viability.

[Greater Cabinda]

I remember you. You're the internet psychoanalyst, right?

You remember me? Really? After a few whole hours? This must be quite an accomplishment for you! My heartiest congratulations on your ability to retain basic information for short periods of time.

Now if only we could get you to the basic cognitive level necessary to tell psychoanalysis from what I was doing on the thread you are (indirectly) referencing.

Or could it be that your self-congratulation is, in fact, a veiled ad hom; an attempt to diminish my credibility in this discussion by way of references to my (supposed) conduct in an altogether different one?

Altogether different one? You're still misapplying the Freudian method in this thread, so I think it's relevant.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

He's my new biggest fan. If you want him to participate in any particular thread, just let me know...I'll go post something and he should be following along shortly.

Oh look, another personal attack (and not a single word in response to being caught employing a fallacy). Would be interlocutors take note!

[Bottle]

And yet another strawman. Your attempts at obfuscation are getting more and more transparent.

The issue is not an ignorance of biology but the tendency of arguments regarding abortion to become abstract. Seeing an actual ultrasound, or actually contemplating your own possible pre-birth termination (if such a thing even makes sense) makes the issue of abortion concrete.

I have. I've nearly died several times. I'm not scared of death, and I'm perfectly okay with the thought of having been aborted.

Yep. I'd rather never have been born, than know my mother was forced to carry me against her wishes. I should sig that considering how many times the anti-choicers trot this crud out and I end up having to repeat myself. Not all of us have fucked up relationships with our mothers...some of us are glad that our mothers CHOSE to bear us and CHOSE to birth us and we wouldn't want it to have been any other way.

[Bottle]

He's my new biggest fan. If you want him to participate in any particular thread, just let me know...I'll go post something and he should be following along shortly.

Oh look, another personal attack (and not a single word in response to being caught employing a fallacy). Would be interlocutors take note!

Now now, calm down. You're getting attention, there's no need to veer into flame-bait territory that might make a mod slap you. I lose all my best fans that way.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

I only ask for consistency in your arguments, which might I mention you seem to lack.

What arguments, exactly? What inconsistencies?

[UCUMAY]

Oh look, another personal attack (and not a single word in response to being caught employing a fallacy). Would be interlocutors take note!

Now now, calm down. You're getting attention, there's no need to veer into flame-bait territory that might make a mod slap you. I lose all my best fans that way.

[Acadzia]

My post makes no such presumption. I am merely drawing conclusions based on your own statements. I was responding to a poster who made a strawman. You jumped in, saying that my objections to that poster's (mis)conduct were somehow invalidated by the fact that you (supposedly) did not make a strawman.

If such is all it takes to invalidate those sorts of objections, you should stick around, redeeming by your very presence all those too incompetent or dishonest to avoid fallacious arguments.

Then find answers to my argument. That was all I was saying. If you will not allow me (a stranger) to use your organs without your consent to save my life... Why should a pregnant woman be forced to provide life support in the same way? I only ask for consistency in your arguments, which might I mention you seem to lack.

Check out Dr. Bernard Nathanson sometime. He helped found NARAL and was one of the driving forces behind Roe V. Wade. Later in life, he became pro-life and eventually a devout Catholic. In his 96 autobiography, "Hand of God", as well as in interviews, he admits that part of NARAL's pro-choice war-plan was to quietly but deliberately divert the child in question from the discussion, focusing solely on the woman.

So, if you'll allow me to channel Dr. Nathanson for a brief moment, I'll firstly counter your hypothetical question with my own. Why should an innocent human being have to die for your convenience?

Now, to answer your question, it is a false dilemma. You and I cannot share, say, my heart at the same time. Giving my heart to you in a transplant necessitates me dying, inherently. There is no such inherent, undeniable death in the case of child-bearing and -birthing. We aren't like Dr. Zoidberg's species from Futurama, doomed to die after coitus and leaving our eggs in the salty brine.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

Altogether different one? You're still misapplying the Freudian method in this thread, so I think it's relevant.

This is a separate discussion on a separate topic and you have failed utterly to show that I have employed, let alone misapplied, the "Freudian Methods" (sic) in this thread or any other. You are simply engaging in personal attacks; arguing from innuendo rather than actually contributing to the discussion.

[UCUMAY]

I only ask for consistency in your arguments, which might I mention you seem to lack.

What arguments, exactly? What inconsistencies?

I apologize I was matrixing.

[UCUMAY]

Then find answers to my argument. That was all I was saying. If you will not allow me (a stranger) to use your organs without your consent to save my life... Why should a pregnant woman be forced to provide life support in the same way? I only ask for consistency in your arguments, which might I mention you seem to lack.

Check out Dr. Bernard Nathanson sometime. He helped found NARAL and was one of the driving forces behind Roe V. Wade. Later in life, he became pro-life and eventually a devout Catholic. In his 96 autobiography, "Hand of God", as well as in interviews, he admits that part of NARAL's pro-choice war-plan was to quietly but deliberately divert the child in question from the discussion, focusing solely on the woman.

So, if you'll allow me to channel Dr. Nathanson for a brief moment, I'll firstly counter your hypothetical question with my own. Why should an innocent human being have to die for your convenience?

Now, to answer your question, it is a false dilemma. You and I cannot share, say, my heart at the same time. Giving my heart to you in a transplant necessitates me dying, inherently. There is no such inherent, undeniable death in the case of child-bearing and -birthing. We aren't like Dr. Zoidberg's species from Futurama, doomed to die after coitus and leaving our eggs in the salty brine.

Give me your liver, or your kidney, or your lung. All of which under normal circumstances won't kill you.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

Now now, calm down. You're getting attention, there's no need to veer into flame-bait territory that might make a mod slap you. I lose all my best fans that way.

And yet another employment of "Mod as weapon," coupled with yet another personal attack. And still no answer to my demonstration that you have and continue to employ fallacy after fallacy in this discussion.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

I apologize I was matrixing.

Matrixing?

[SpectacularSpectacular]

They are not even similar so I wont lump them together, because doing so clouds the line between biological facts and moral bias. The reason not to combine the two is so that we can actually discuss this in a manner that is true and factual.
Hospital incubaters don't mimic the 'function' of the womb(unless you mean that in the crudest most undereducated idea of the enviroment a womb provides), its a life support system with a heat source and smaller tubes.
For the same reason we don't kill a premature birth, at around 26 weeks. Thy are able to survive, individually as a seperate organism, with the aid of life support.
Its called the limit or point of viability, btw, and there is more to that standard than just medical technology.

Your sentiment is incorrect. Medical technology is the biggest decider of point of viability.

No doubt a large deciding factor, but the only one? No. Stage of development is very important the further back in stages you go. Hypotheticaly we may be able to 'counter' severe under development(lets say 15-19 weeks). But thats just hypothetical.

[Acadzia]

Check out Dr. Bernard Nathanson sometime. He helped found NARAL and was one of the driving forces behind Roe V. Wade. Later in life, he became pro-life and eventually a devout Catholic. In his 96 autobiography, "Hand of God", as well as in interviews, he admits that part of NARAL's pro-choice war-plan was to quietly but deliberately divert the child in question from the discussion, focusing solely on the woman.

So, if you'll allow me to channel Dr. Nathanson for a brief moment, I'll firstly counter your hypothetical question with my own. Why should an innocent human being have to die for your convenience?

Now, to answer your question, it is a false dilemma. You and I cannot share, say, my heart at the same time. Giving my heart to you in a transplant necessitates me dying, inherently. There is no such inherent, undeniable death in the case of child-bearing and -birthing. We aren't like Dr. Zoidberg's species from Futurama, doomed to die after coitus and leaving our eggs in the salty brine.

Give me your liver, or your kidneys, or your lung. All of which under normal circumstances won't kill you.

I'd be permanently physically-limited without them, not so with child-bearing and -birthing. Also, you're a stranger, not my daughter. If my child/sibling/parent/best friend needed an organ that I could give, I would in a heartbeat; no deliberation needed on my part. Strangers can have whatever they need from this mortal coil when I'm dead, though; I'm a registered organ donor.

Finally, a wise woman once said, of analogies. "They are not even similar so I wont lump them together, because doing so clouds the line between biological facts and moral bias. The reason not to combine the two is so that we can actually discuss this in a manner that is true and factual." Can we talk about unborn babies and not my visceral organs? Or do you really need a kidney?

[UCUMAY]

I apologize I was matrixing.

Matrixing?

http://www.suite101.com/content/what-is ... ing-a65446

Easily put it's having several stimuli and the brain turning it into something different.

*Pleads temporary insanity*

[UCUMAY]

Give me your liver, or your kidneys, or your lung. All of which under normal circumstances won't kill you.

I'd be permanently physically-limited without them, not so with child-bearing and -birthing. Also, you're a stranger, not my daughter. If my child/sibling/parent/best friend needed an organ that I could give, I would in a heartbeat; no deliberation needed on my part. Strangers can have whatever they need from this mortal coil when I'm dead, though; I'm a registered organ donor.

Finally, a wise woman once said, of analogies. "They are not even similar so I wont lump them together, because doing so clouds the line between biological facts and moral bias. The reason not to combine the two is so that we can actually discuss this in a manner that is true and factual." Can we talk about unborn babies and not my visceral organs? Or do you really need a kidney?

Some women suffer live long health impacts. The analogies aren't so different for some individuals. You are trying to generalize. Where as I attempt to see the shades of gray.