tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post5001691781006045322..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: What price pro-lifeVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9697547598651372832018-09-26T14:39:52.466-07:002018-09-26T14:39:52.466-07:00bmiller said...
"This is your own quote tha...bmiller said... <br /><br />"<i>This is your own quote that you just provided:<br /><br />But your view is more emotional than that; any stage of that complex development is labelled as a human life, which is why I said it's a low bar. Or it's just part of it? I am not sure... because you say that this new unique set of DNA is a human life? Again, what a low bar, what an unscientific view. <br /><br />You claimed that I was being emotional because I labeled the human being as existing from the moment of conception on. That is simply the scientific definition, no emotion involved. Do you dispute the scientific definition? If so tell me why.<br /><br />Please don't accuse me of equivocation when that is just what you did when you just now when you did not use the term in your quote.</i>"<br /><br />Great, seriously, thank you for pointing that out. I did discuss contradicting things: science being relevant and science not being relevant. It's a good occasion to correct a mistake.<br /><br />What did I write in that quote?<br /><br />I was replying to you (and others) saying that this new unique set of DNA is a human life, right at conception. So, is it? Scientifically first. Yes, it is a human life in the sense that it's both human and living. So in that quote, my own quote, I was talking about the science process, about how much we know about it. Then, I offered an opinion: it's unscientific to deny the fact that a couple of cells are not the same as an embryo, which is not the same as a fetus, which is not the same as a fully grown yet unborn baby, etc... Clearly, I was referring to what we know about human development, about what science tells us.<br /><br />Ok, so what's the second meaning, why does it sound like a contradiction? The second part was about science is not relevant. Yet I also said, just now, that it is. So what's happening?<br /><br />The second meaning is about the definition of a person, and whether killing something should be considered murder. If the thing being killed is a human person, then yes, it's murder. If the thing being killed is not a human person, then no, it's not murder. Can science help us answer that question? Yes and no, it's not simple. So I did oversimplify for sure when I said more recently that it's not about science at all. Because of our knowledge of how humans develop, from conception to birth, we can form an informed position. So yes, it matters.<br /><br />But why is it an equivocation fallacy? And why do you not want me to point that out? Well, because that's the main crux of the argument here. (Btw, still not the first point of the Roe V Wade debate as expressed elsewhere.) You're arguing that at conception we already have a 'human life'. But at the same time, there is a very different version of such 'human life' when it comes to fully formed humans with consciousness and bodily independence. So how can we put the 2 on the same footing? That's what I see as an equivocation error... the 2 are not the same at all, yet they are used interchangeably to accuse women of killing human lives.<br /><br />In short, there's something I read in these many comments, about how some folks wouldn't want to be on the pro-choice because it's hard to defend, or that the pro-life position is so much simpler. I agree! It is so much simpler to be pro-life. There's almost no thinking to do... and that's why it's such an irrational and unscientific position. It uses a correct scientific definition, sure, but extrapolated to the much more complicated concept of personhood. But the pro-life position also denies science by pretending that there is some sort of special-ness to the new embryo formed by 2 sexual cells (DNA fetishm...) even though we understand so well the process that it's laughable to see these things as anything special. Again, it's so much simpler, because there is no need to think further about what will happen after the initial combination.<br /><br />Sorry, this one was too long...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10899282167721771982018-09-25T22:15:35.377-07:002018-09-25T22:15:35.377-07:00bmiller
You claimed that I was being emotional be...bmiller<br /><br />You claimed that I was being emotional because I labeled the human being as existing from the moment of conception on. That is simply the scientific definition, no emotion involved. Do you dispute the scientific definition? If so tell me why.<br /><br /><b>No it is no,t it's BS.No scientific definition says a fertilized egg is a human being, Scientific writers distinguish between human life and a human being, you are not into that distinction you don;t understand it,<br /><br />I once to a very fundie church ,there was young doctor there he was sincere about his faith,I noticed he was always kind of holding back when this topic was discussed Once I concreted him and asked him it's scientific fact right he said no it;s not proven no one knows when it becomes ;a person that is a philosophical issue, I said why don;t you tell the, he said they don;t care, they don;t really want scientific proof of anything,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70832835018278784752018-09-25T22:05:53.290-07:002018-09-25T22:05:53.290-07:00ou are fact challenged:
Mifepristone, also known ...ou are fact challenged:<br /><br />Mifepristone, also known as RU-486, is a medication typically used in combination with misoprostol, to bring about an abortion. RU-486 brings about an abortion.<br /><br />“Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception)". It brings about an abortion because it has the intention of killing the conceived human being.<br /><br /><br /><b>Remember I already said the RTlM had dubbed it this way (abortion pill) because they don't want to lose their organizing tool. They want aborigine to continue so they can use it to organize fundamentalists. You are merely reciting RTL literature as though it;s an objective factual account it is not,<br /><br />Remember I said it maters when you take it? If the woman takes it in the first few weeks it prevents the egg hooking up and getting fertilized,if you take months latter it will kill the fetus,don't do it take it at the era;y juncture issue is soloed. But yoyu don;t want it solved do you?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55696016529691078072018-09-25T21:54:43.471-07:002018-09-25T21:54:43.471-07:00(20) TO BE MURDER YOU HAVE TO PROVE THE FETUS ALRE...(20) TO BE MURDER YOU HAVE TO PROVE THE FETUS ALREDAY HAS A FUNCTIONING BRAIN HOW DOES AN EGG THAT HAS NOT BEEN FERTILIZED HAVE A FUNCTIONING BRAIN?<br /><br />Oooooo. He typed in all CAPS. That's a very persuasive philosophical argument. Not.<br />The sentence isn't even coherent. Do you not know the difference between an egg and a fetus?<br /><br /><b>That's all you can do isn't it? i just proved you wrong, you can only attack my spelling something about my typing, you don't even try to answer my logic,you can;t.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75371776305055133162018-09-25T17:58:21.711-07:002018-09-25T17:58:21.711-07:00Hugo,
No, you don't agree with the scientific...Hugo,<br /><br /><b>No, you don't agree with the scientific consensus because this is not even a scientific question.</b><br /><br />This is your own quote that you just provided:<br /><br /><i> But your view is more emotional than that; any stage of that complex development is labelled as a human life, which is why I said it's a low bar. Or it's just part of it? I am not sure... because you say that this new unique set of DNA is a human life? Again, what a low bar, <b>what an unscientific view. </b></i><br /><br />You claimed that I was being emotional because <b>I</b> labeled the human being as existing from the moment of conception on. That is simply the scientific definition, no emotion involved. Do you dispute the scientific definition? If so tell me why.<br /><br />Please don't accuse me of equivocation when that is just what you did when you just now when you did not use the term in your quote.<br /><br />I've already made arguments wrt the personhood argument in the post of September 25, 2018 8:22 AM.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12218904759680236302018-09-25T16:37:10.985-07:002018-09-25T16:37:10.985-07:00bmiller said...
"You've been provided t...bmiller said... <br /><br />"<i>You've been provided the link that shows I agree with the scientific consensus and you apparently don't. I'm not emotional about citing science. </i>"<br />No, you don't agree with the scientific consensus because this is not even a scientific question. Science cannot determine what a 'person' is. You are equivocating 2 different things; the definition of a living thing of human origin and a living person. Science is silent on the latter; it's purely a social construct.<br /><br />A simple example can prove the point: a human body born without a functioning brain. Science can and do have certain parameters to help us determine whether the brain is still working. That's why we have definitions of 'brain deaths' that are then used to decide what we, as a society, should or shouldn't do about the body, which may or may not be considered a 'person' anymore. It can happen to a body that used to be 'someone' or to a body that was just born this way. Yet, such biological entity definitely fits the definition of 'human life' and there are indeed people who refuse to let of such body, for emotional reasons, because they perceive it as a 'person'.<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33033517546242383012018-09-25T13:58:08.063-07:002018-09-25T13:58:08.063-07:00Additionally, if you think "personhood" ...Additionally, if you think "personhood" should be the standard:<br /><br />The reasonable doubt standard was put in place as a protection against the punishment of the possibly innocent. By this standard, in the case of the unborn, where there is reason to believe that they do indeed possess personhood, they should be not be harmed. It is the duty of those who wish to do the harm to prove conclusively that they do not possess personhood.<br /><br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43952753891047464272018-09-25T13:31:39.716-07:002018-09-25T13:31:39.716-07:00By this logic, then when the law is changed to def...By this logic, then when the law is changed to define a person as being present at the moment of conception, it will be beyond a reasonable doubt and abortionists will be beyond a reasonable doubt murderers.<br /><br />Do you think legal statutes change the ontological status of anything? If the law was changed that it's OK to kill particular minorities would that be OK with you?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22907631708598028792018-09-25T13:20:06.535-07:002018-09-25T13:20:06.535-07:00I have a strong inclination toward these two posit...I have a strong inclination toward these two positions. <br /><br />1) Abortion is murder. <br />2) Abortion should be legal. <br /><br />Which means I think murder should be legal in many cases, that although very wrong, the remedy for it should be moral rather than legal. That is because the personhood of the fetus is not provable beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the status of abortionists as murderers is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that is the standard for convicting someone of murder in America. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27000942790542621752018-09-25T13:09:41.623-07:002018-09-25T13:09:41.623-07:00Joe,
You are fact challenged:
Mifepristone, also...Joe,<br /><br />You are fact challenged:<br /><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone" rel="nofollow">Mifepristone, also known as RU-486, is a medication typically used in combination with misoprostol, to bring about an abortion.</a> RU-486 brings about an abortion.<br /><br />“Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception)". It brings about an abortion because it has the intention of killing the conceived human being.<br /><br /><b>(20) TO BE MURDER YOU HAVE TO PROVE THE FETUS ALREDAY HAS A FUNCTIONING BRAIN HOW DOES AN EGG THAT HAS NOT BEEN FERTILIZED HAVE A FUNCTIONING BRAIN?</b><br /><br />Oooooo. He typed in all CAPS. That's a very persuasive philosophical argument. Not.<br />The sentence isn't even coherent. Do you not know the difference between an egg and a fetus?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8418396321954159072018-09-25T12:49:55.259-07:002018-09-25T12:49:55.259-07:00bmiller said...
Per the linked article, an individ...bmiller said...<br /><i>Per the linked article, an individual human life begins at conception. This is not controversial. RU486 kills an individual human life. To say otherwise is denial of science.</i><br /><br />You should get the science, and basic facts, correct before you accuse others. RU486 does not kill anything. Rather, it only prevents implantation. The embryo goes straight through the uterus to a very early "birth", to live or die on it's own merits.<br /><br />Now, you are free to make the argument that the woman if morally required to let a completely separate person hook itself up to her. Good luck making that convincing.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73166713306040069542018-09-25T12:38:31.973-07:002018-09-25T12:38:31.973-07:00miller
"I'm interested in a rational disc...miller<br />"I'm interested in a rational discussion, but when people start calling me a troll or a "violet thug" I reserve to the right to mock them. I don't even like violet btw."<br /><br /><b>hey b your evidence says the fertilized egg is human life, but if the woman takes ru486 in the first few weeks it prevents fertilization,so it's not killing human life.If you find this is a true interpretation what excuse do you have to to further organize the right wing on the abortion issue?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47490306074206402672018-09-25T12:36:24.141-07:002018-09-25T12:36:24.141-07:00b
"I'm interested in a rational discussio...b<br />"I'm interested in a rational discussion, but when people start calling me a troll or a "violet thug" I reserve to the right to mock them. I don't even like violet btw."<br /><br /><b>hey b your evidence says the fertilized egg is human life, but if the woman takes ru486 in the first few seeks it prevents fertilization,so it's not killing human life,''if you find this is a true interpretation what excuse do you have to to further organize the right wing on the abortion issue?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33640758264589811562018-09-25T12:30:06.027-07:002018-09-25T12:30:06.027-07:00Blogger bmiller said...
No, the topic IS about cho...Blogger bmiller said...<br />No, the topic IS about choice, first, not about the definition of what a human being is.<br /><br />Not the topic I'm discussing. Address someone else if you don't want to discuss something else.<br /><br /><b>you are trying to worm out because you lost the argument, ru486 removes your chance to punish women, so you have to move it back to the territory of murdering something,if you really cared about life it looks like you would be happy that now there's a way to save all those babbies,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46577990720007085042018-09-25T12:25:49.376-07:002018-09-25T12:25:49.376-07:00Blogger bmiller said...
Technically, that's no...<br />Blogger bmiller said...<br />Technically, that's not an abortion, says Wood.<br /><br />George Orwell from the great beyond here, using bmiller's account. <br /><br />See how someone can phrase an act that is intended to kill an innocent living human being (which is the definition of murder) in a way that makes it sound like that's not what it is.<br /><br /><b>Sloppy theatrical rhetoric. "that;s what it is." No it's not what it is you can't demonstrate any reason why it would be, all you can't do is use flare words and act offended, hysterical and fended,<br /><br />(1) Take the drug at the right time it's not killing any thing, how is it murder?<br /><br />(20) TO BE MURDER YOU HAVE TO PROVE THE FETUS ALREDAY HAS A FUNCTIONING BRAIN HOW DOES AN EGG THAT HAS NOT BEEN FERTILIZED HAVE A FUNCTIONING BRAIN?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62036933141152822152018-09-25T12:21:32.161-07:002018-09-25T12:21:32.161-07:00@Hugo,
If you think I'm off topic, then just ...@Hugo,<br /><br />If you think I'm off topic, then just stop addressing me. Others apparently don't agree with you.<br /><br />Yes, I remember you sharing your that opinion with me, but now as then you fail in philosophical argumentation and fact. For instance:<br /><br /><b>But your view is more emotional than that; any stage of that complex development is labelled as a human life, which is why I said it's a low bar.</b><br /><br />You've been provided the link that shows I agree with the scientific consensus and you apparently don't. I'm not emotional about citing science. How odd you would accuse me of that.<br /><br />I'm interested in a rational discussion, but when people start calling me a troll or a "<b>violet</b> thug" I reserve to the right to mock them. I don't even like violet btw.<br /><br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54065051126289030032018-09-25T12:06:03.029-07:002018-09-25T12:06:03.029-07:00@bmiller,
A) Roe V Wade is NOT about a position o...@bmiller,<br /><br />A) Roe V Wade is NOT about a position on what a human life is, or isn't. You're off topic.<br /><br />B) But, I do agree it's important, and have discussed it before. That's where you get emotional and cannot discuss it rationally. As seen here:<br />http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2018/05/roe-v-wade-again.html<br />"<i> It's a grey area that goes from completely meaningless sack of DNA, nothing more than road gravel, to a fully developed baby that would survive outside the womb. As the pregnancy progresses, it becomes harder and harder to make the call, the subjective call, as to whether the abortion is killing something that is actually a human life or not. But your view is more emotional than that; any stage of that complex development is labelled as a human life, which is why I said it's a low bar. Or it's just part of it? I am not sure... because you say that this new unique set of DNA is a human life? Again, what a low bar, what an unscientific view. That's just emotional attachment to a "what if" case.</i>"<br /><br />C) You're just trolling; trying to find 'gotcha' things to say. But it's entertaining at least, and a good way to extract actual point within a lot of non-sense. Thanks for the exercice.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62239822771185939712018-09-25T11:46:23.292-07:002018-09-25T11:46:23.292-07:00@Hugo,
Still no substance to support your positio...@Hugo,<br /><br />Still no substance to support your position wrt human life I see. At least Joe is trying.<br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69117545359568234622018-09-25T11:19:30.459-07:002018-09-25T11:19:30.459-07:00bmiller,
Nice way to avoid supporting your emotion...bmiller,<br />Nice way to avoid supporting your emotional defense of your anti-choice position.<br />Plus, the original post was about Roe V Wade. Why are you commenting here then?<br />I guess it's up to other to ignore your irrelevant comments then; that's fair I suppose. But when you write something silly and get call for it, you can't whine that you are on topic and others are not, when you are the one who decided to go on what you consider to be a tangent...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82417482048480025072018-09-25T11:01:18.087-07:002018-09-25T11:01:18.087-07:00Correction: Address someone else if you want to d...Correction: Address someone else if you <b>want</b> to discuss something else.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64078533468630434502018-09-25T10:59:22.396-07:002018-09-25T10:59:22.396-07:00No, the topic IS about choice, first, not about th...<b>No, the topic IS about choice, first, not about the definition of what a human being is.</b><br /><br />Not the topic I'm discussing. Address someone else if you don't want to discuss something else.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12624736803728412852018-09-25T10:57:00.153-07:002018-09-25T10:57:00.153-07:00Technically, that's not an abortion, says Wood...<b>Technically, that's not an abortion, says Wood.</b><br /><br />George Orwell from the great beyond here, using bmiller's account. <br /><br />See how someone can phrase an act that is intended to kill an innocent living human being (which is the definition of murder) in a way that makes it sound like that's not what it is.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23014106516977117662018-09-25T10:16:24.548-07:002018-09-25T10:16:24.548-07:00the classic misstate is tat the RTL will say RU486...the classic misstate is tat the RTL will say RU486 will kill a "baby" by making it's heart stop beating. By the time it has a heart is way after the time to take the pill, The drug is supposed to prevent egg from hooking up to cell wall. No heart, no egg has a heart, get it? they are all talking about taking it at the wrong time they don't admit that because they deceptive.<br /><br /><br />rTLM = lying vicious Violet thugs.<br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2969386639634269192018-09-25T10:06:56.520-07:002018-09-25T10:06:56.520-07:00NPR
"Morning after Pills Donn't causeabor...<br /><br />NPR<br />"Morning after Pills Donn't causeabortion"<br />February 21, 20135:04 PM ET<br />Heard on All Things Considered<br />https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/02/22/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say<br /><br /><br />"Scientists did know the drug worked primarily by preventing ovulation. It stops an egg from being released from a woman's ovary and thus prevents any chance of fertilization and pregnancy. But they also thought the drug might make it more difficult for a fertilized egg to implant in a woman's uterus.<br /><br />Technically, that's not an abortion, says Wood.<br /><br />"We know that about half of fertilized eggs never stick around. They just pass out of the woman's body," she says. "An abortifacient is something that interrupts an established pregnancy."<br /><br />But people like Rudd worry that even if what the drugs do is not technically abortion, it's still objectionable if it happens after fertilization."<br /><br /><b>Caveots</b><br /><br />This article distinguishes between RU486 and these of "morning after" drugs spoken of in the article. But I think this statement includes both.<br /><br />so tae the other pills not 486, the same principleJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59898369404442451742018-09-25T10:05:07.067-07:002018-09-25T10:05:07.067-07:00bmiller said:
"You have attempted to change t...bmiller said:<br />"You have attempted to change the topic"<br />No, the topic IS about choice, first, not about the definition of what a human being is.<br /><br />It's exactly like guns... are you in favor of people owning a gun no matter what they may do with it? If yes, does that imply that whatever they do with it is acceptable?<br /><br />Very similar here. I think it's always, in every single instance, up to the woman to decide what to do with her body. If you want to argue that she is killing some human being, that she should be charged with murder, you need to explain why it is akin to murdering a full grown human being.<br /><br />"No rational argument for me to respond to here."<br />None on your side actually. It's not rational to claim that a few cells is the same as a human being. It's not rational to claim that something that has a beating hearth is a human being worth saving. It's just emotional. There is no logic.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.com