Real Rape Victims Don't Get Pregnant

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I was working off your definition...

No, you were working off a straw man of my definition. I never claimed that any collection of human cells is a person.

Err...no...you have made it quite clear over a number of posts that life begins at conception. Even if at conception it is just a collection of cells..which is also what a tumour is...a collection of cells.

You then said -

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=196375&p=10673583#p10673583

Nulono wrote:A tumor is not an organism, geniuses. Neither is a toe.

[Mail Jeevas]

I've brought it up once. And other people have brought it up too.

And for the record, Wilkes is an idiot. Someone posted this earlier.

And @Nulono : A prospective mother may have an "ethical obligation" to not kill her unborn child/fetus/parasite/what have you, but society should not force her to think like them. If she wants to be seen as "morally wrong" to some people, so she doesn't have to look at the face that raped her, then she shouldn't have to. A woman should have the right to chose what happens in her body. And society owes it to a child for them to be brought up in loving homes. Forcing a woman through an unwanted pregnancy does not always do right by the child.

So it's okay to kill someone so that they won't be brought up in an unloving home? It's okay to kill someone because you don't like their face?

And it's all right to put someone through the humiliation, trauma, etc every single day?

No, I don't think it's right that someone should be killed just because of what they look like. But I don't think it's my choice to make, to force a woman who I do not know, to live with that sort of pain.

And honestly, never growing up can be preferable to growing up in a household where you're hated due to something outside of your control. If Republicans and others want to continually force women to have unwanted children, then perhaps they ought to also be willing to revamp the foster and adoption laws so more kids aren't brought up in abusive households that only take them for the subsidies, and are instead given to loving couples (or singles) who can give them the love a child deserves, no matter the circumstances of their birth.

[Neo Art]

-snip-

Please refain from ever falsely attributing anything (least of all such annoying crap as this) to me again.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

That is an argumentum ad consequentiam, and does not refute my point.

no, it's an integral part of the debate. you're claiming fetuses are persons, I'm demanding a definition that is universal and that allows both fetuses to be people and dead people (also sperm/ovum)not to be people. Can you provide one? If not, why do fetuses deserve special treatment? If so, why haven't you provided it?
If you're arguing that something should be legal (or illegal) the consequences of making it so need to be examined, this is not a fallacy.

Exactly ....which is why it all really falls down because on that criteria tumour are also people...which is obviously not the case.

[The Black Forrest]

I thought we talking about abortion and anti-choice.

You said it was anti-choice to take a choice away from someone. Is it not anti-choice to tell someone not to rape, steal, or torture?

I know it's hard to stay focused but the topic is women and abortion.

You think you disqualified the comment?

No, I think I asked what relevance the comment had.

Go back and re-read the original comment as it was applied.

They already do. Don't know if there were any convictions.

For infants who just die in their sleep, with no suspicion of foul play? Source please?

Coming back from your tangent. If a woman miscarries; how do you prove intentional and unintentional? After all, the law must step in when a fully functional human being is assumed to have been murdered....

People aren't just assumed to have been murdered with no evidence.

you don't want to answer or don't know. Ok.

[

[Nulono]

No, you were working off a straw man of my definition. I never claimed that any collection of human cells is a person.

Err...no...you have made it quite clear over a number of posts that life begins at conception. Even if at conception it is just a collection of cells..which is also what a tumour is...a collection of cells.

You then said -

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=196375&p=10673583#p10673583

Nulono wrote:A tumor is not an organism, geniuses. Neither is a toe.

That is correct. At no point did I say a tumor was a person. Saying that one collection of cells is a person is not the same as saying all collections of cells are persons.

So it's okay to kill someone so that they won't be brought up in an unloving home? It's okay to kill someone because you don't like their face?

And it's all right to put someone through the humiliation, trauma, etc every single day?

No, I don't think it's right that someone should be killed just because of what they look like. But I don't think it's my choice to make, to force a woman who I do not know, to live with that sort of pain.

And honestly, never growing up can be preferable to growing up in a household where you're hated due to something outside of your control. If Republicans and others want to continually force women to have unwanted children, then perhaps they ought to also be willing to revamp the foster and adoption laws so more kids aren't brought up in abusive households that only take them for the subsidies, and are instead given to loving couples (or singles) who can give them the love a child deserves, no matter the circumstances of their birth.

Should we allow women to decide to kill an infant that they don't want to look at, or to kill children in imperfect homes?

-snip-

Please refain from ever falsely attributing anything (least of all such annoying crap as this) to me again.

I have edited the post; it was an unintentional formatting error.

no, it's an integral part of the debate. you're claiming fetuses are persons, I'm demanding a definition that is universal and that allows both fetuses to be people and dead people (also sperm/ovum)not to be people. Can you provide one? If not, why do fetuses deserve special treatment? If so, why haven't you provided it?
If you're arguing that something should be legal (or illegal) the consequences of making it so need to be examined, this is not a fallacy.

Exactly ....which is why it all really falls down because on that criteria tumour are also people...which is obviously not the case.

No, it is not the case, and it is not under my definition, only under the strawman you have chosen to attack.

[Samuraikoku]

As I just said, I never claimed that abortion was illegal, just that someone who never plans to kill anyone shouldn't be afraid of pro-life laws.

And again, that is called goalpost shifting, and it's a fallacy. Want to argue law, stick to law.

[Nulono]

You said it was anti-choice to take a choice away from someone. Is it not anti-choice to tell someone not to rape, steal, or torture?

I know it's hard to stay focused but the topic is women and abortion.

Are you anti-choice?

No, I think I asked what relevance the comment had.

Go back and re-read the original comment as it was applied.

The comment that opposing abortion is just out of Christian beliefs?

For infants who just die in their sleep, with no suspicion of foul play? Source please?


People aren't just assumed to have been murdered with no evidence.

you don't want to answer or don't know. Ok.

[

I did answer. Miscarriages would not be prosecuted unless there was some reason to suspect foul play.

[Nulono]

As I just said, I never claimed that abortion was illegal, just that someone who never plans to kill anyone shouldn't be afraid of pro-life laws.

And again, that is called goalpost shifting, and it's a fallacy. Want to argue law, stick to law.

I never ever argued that all law was pro-life. I said that if someone doesn't plan on killing anyone, pro-life laws won't affect them.

[Poorisolation]

Were I to come upon a man viciously sucking blood and nutrients from my partner's womb and I then shot him dead, I would likely be hailed as a hero for exercising my right to self defence by persons of a certain political persuasion.

Should a woman exercise her right to self defence by aborting the unwanted intruder in her womb that is feasting on her bodily products she is condemned as a criminal by persons of that same persuasion.

So the question is, if someone were to develop a really tiny abortifactant pistol....would that win the support of the NRA?

[Samuraikoku]

I never ever argued that all law was pro-life. I said that if someone doesn't plan on killing anyone, pro-life laws won't affect them.

Except they do, in violation of a a SCOTUS legal precedent.

[DaWoad]

no, it's an integral part of the debate. you're claiming fetuses are persons, I'm demanding a definition that is universal and that allows both fetuses to be people and dead people (also sperm/ovum)not to be people. Can you provide one? If not, why do fetuses deserve special treatment? If so, why haven't you provided it?
If you're arguing that something should be legal (or illegal) the consequences of making it so need to be examined, this is not a fallacy.

A person is any organism of the human species.

that includes dead people.

[Nulono]

Were I to come upon a man viciously sucking blood and nutrients from my partner's womb and I then shot him dead, I would likely be hailed as a hero for exercising my right to self defence by persons of a certain political persuasion.

Should a woman exercise her right to self defence by aborting the unwanted intruder in her womb that is feasting on her bodily products she is condemned as a criminal by persons of that same persuasion.

So the question is, if someone were to develop a really tiny abortifactant pistol....would that win the support of the NRA?

Seriously? No, you would not be hailed as a hero. No, the fetus is neither "vicious" nor an "intruder" any more than a kidnapping victim is a trespasser.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Err...no...you have made it quite clear over a number of posts that life begins at conception. Even if at conception it is just a collection of cells..which is also what a tumour is...a collection of cells.

You then said -

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=196375&p=10673583#p10673583

That is correct. At no point did I say a tumor was a person. Saying that one collection of cells is a person is not the same as saying all collections of cells are persons.

And it's all right to put someone through the humiliation, trauma, etc every single day?

No, I don't think it's right that someone should be killed just because of what they look like. But I don't think it's my choice to make, to force a woman who I do not know, to live with that sort of pain.

And honestly, never growing up can be preferable to growing up in a household where you're hated due to something outside of your control. If Republicans and others want to continually force women to have unwanted children, then perhaps they ought to also be willing to revamp the foster and adoption laws so more kids aren't brought up in abusive households that only take them for the subsidies, and are instead given to loving couples (or singles) who can give them the love a child deserves, no matter the circumstances of their birth.

Should we allow women to decide to kill an infant that they don't want to look at, or to kill children in imperfect homes?

Please refain from ever falsely attributing anything (least of all such annoying crap as this) to me again.

I have edited the post; it was an unintentional formatting error.

Exactly ....which is why it all really falls down because on that criteria tumour are also people...which is obviously not the case.

No, it is not the case, and it is not under my definition, only under the strawman you have chosen to attack.

Yeah I can see selective reasoning is your forte. You made it clear that a collection of cells should be considered human and therefore be given right(s) (with no science to back that up by the way). A tumour is also a collection of cells...and by your reasoning should also be given right(s).

Now you can cry about strawmen until you're hoarse...but it won't change the fact that your ideas about conception are utter bollocks.

[Mail Jeevas]

Should we allow women to decide to kill an infant that they don't want to look at, or to kill children in imperfect homes?

A fetus is not an infant. Webster's Medical dictionary defines an "infant" as:

1
a : a child in the first year of life : baby
b : a child several years of age
2
: a person who is not of full age : minor

A fetus is not a child in its first year of life, nor a child several years of age, nor a person in any shape at all.

And no, I do not want to kill children in imperfect homes. What I would much rather happen is to find these children good homes where they will not grow up abused/unloved/etcetera, which are things the (radical) Right do not want as shown by their constant attempts to destroy welfare, Planned Parenthood, tons of other social services, as well as make laws that block and make it impossible for citizens to adopt a child due to a non-issue like sexuality or ethnicity.

[Nulono]

I never ever argued that all law was pro-life. I said that if someone doesn't plan on killing anyone, pro-life laws won't affect them.

Except they do, in violation of a a SCOTUS legal precedent.

Not if they don't plan on killing anyone.

A person is any organism of the human species.

that includes dead people.

No, it doesn't.

[Samuraikoku]

Not if they don't plan on killing anyone.

Since everybody has the same rights, unfair laws are unfair laws to all. Under that analogy, if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't object to me tapping your phone wire. Or entering your house without a search warrant.

[DaWoad]

that includes dead people.

No, it doesn't.

yes, it does. Braindead people are dead. They are not, nor will they ever again do, think or feel any of the things that make people people and yet they are organisms or the human species.

[Nulono]

That is correct. At no point did I say a tumor was a person. Saying that one collection of cells is a person is not the same as saying all collections of cells are persons.


Should we allow women to decide to kill an infant that they don't want to look at, or to kill children in imperfect homes?


I have edited the post; it was an unintentional formatting error.


No, it is not the case, and it is not under my definition, only under the strawman you have chosen to attack.

Yeah I can see selective reasoning is your forte. You made it clear that a collection of cells should be considered human and therefore be given right(s) (with no science to back that up by the way). A tumour is also a collection of cells...and by your reasoning should also be given right(s).

Now you can cry about strawmen until you're hoarse...but it won't change the fact that your ideas about conception are utter bollocks.

That's nonsense. That would be like saying that if all horses can be ridden, and all horses are animals, and all insects are animals, so all insects can be ridden.

Should we allow women to decide to kill an infant that they don't want to look at, or to kill children in imperfect homes?

A fetus is not an infant. Webster's Medical dictionary defines an "infant" as:

1
a : a child in the first year of life : baby
b : a child several years of age
2
: a person who is not of full age : minor

A fetus is not a child in its first year of life, nor a child several years of age, nor a person in any shape at all.

And no, I do not want to kill children in imperfect homes. What I would much rather happen is to find these children good homes where they will not grow up abused/unloved/etcetera, which are things the (radical) Right do not want as shown by their constant attempts to destroy welfare, Planned Parenthood, tons of other social services, as well as make laws that block and make it impossible for citizens to adopt a child due to a non-issue like sexuality or ethnicity.

I didn't say fetuses were infants. I asked whether it's okay to kill an infant you don't want to look at, a question you haven't answered. I agree that we need to expand welfare, and oppose attempts to ban gay adoption or destroy social services.

[Nulono]

No, it doesn't.

yes, it does. Braindead people are dead. They are not, nor will they ever again do, think or feel any of the things that make people people and yet they are organisms or the human species.

People are not people because they feel certain things.

Not if they don't plan on killing anyone.

Since everybody has the same rights, unfair laws are unfair laws to all. Under that analogy, if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't object to me tapping your phone wire. Or entering your house without a search warrant.

It's unfair to not kill someone?

[DaWoad]

yes, it does. Braindead people are dead. They are not, nor will they ever again do, think or feel any of the things that make people people and yet they are organisms or the human species.

People are not people because they feel certain things.

not what i said. Nice try though.

[Samuraikoku]

It's unfair to not kill someone?

Who's strawmanning now?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Yeah I can see selective reasoning is your forte. You made it clear that a collection of cells should be considered human and therefore be given right(s) (with no science to back that up by the way). A tumour is also a collection of cells...and by your reasoning should also be given right(s).

Now you can cry about strawmen until you're hoarse...but it won't change the fact that your ideas about conception are utter bollocks.

That's nonsense. That would be like saying that if all horses can be ridden, and all horses are animals, and all insects are animals, so all insects can be ridden.

Awesome. You do realise that that is exactly what you were saying right?

[Nulono]

People are not people because they feel certain things.

not what i said. Nice try though.

^It's right there!

[Nulono]

That's nonsense. That would be like saying that if all horses can be ridden, and all horses are animals, and all insects are animals, so all insects can be ridden.

Awesome. You do realise that that is exactly what you were saying right?

No, it's not. All I was saying was that all horses can be ridden. The rest was you lot.

I said that the embryo is a person. You said that because the embryo is a collection of cells, this must mean all collections of cells are persons, including tumors. This is syllogistically equivalent to saying that because a horse is an animal, this must mean all animals can be ridden, including insects.