Against abortion and against person-hood?

[Town Heretic]

More Town-based opinion,

Well, it is my opinion. But it's also how the men who formed the compact put it. That's how informed opinions go. "We hold these truths to be self evident..." goes on to note that right is a thing established outside of the compact. Law and the state then neither create nor allow, but instead protect right we are endowed with.

as the state clearly sees fit to adjudicate and often to deny (with the people's consent) this right that you claim it does not have the right to adjudicate or deny.

You continue to misstate. I've noted we make exceptions relating to the abrogation of the right by others (though I mostly don't agree with it). And I've frequently noted that rights are necessarily subject to limitation as they are balanced between individuals. Abortion can even rise to this threshold when the mother's life is imperiled.

Once again, the Town-opinion forms the foundation of his "argument" via the addition of the word "potential". Because Town believes a "potential" person is the equivalent of an actual person. And thus non-demonstrated personhood is as deserving of the right to exist as demonstrated personhood

Rather, every point on the chronological line is nothing more than a potential point of vestment, a point where we lack the right to abrogate absent a fairly horrific abrogation of another's right to exist, which isn't present in the unborn at any point (unless you're speaking to a mother's life being directly endangered, which I've also spoken to).

If you don't know whether or not a person is standing behind the tent flap you shouldn't thrust a sword through it.

… More blatant opinion dressed up as legalese. We can't abrogate a right that doesn't yet exist.

Supra.

And no one anywhere has proposed that we do so without justification.

If you're proposing we do it and the mother's life isn't in immediate jeopardy then that's exactly what you're doing.

But I guess you're hoping we won't notice these blatant oversights in your "argument". Oversights that are based on your complete conviction (opinion) that potential personhood logically equals demonstrated personhood.

Neither of those statements are true or demonstrable. Supra.

Anyone with a brain, reading this, will see that your "argument" is exactly as I've stated. And all you've done is dress it up in lawyerly jargon and sputter about how I didn't understand it. When it's you who doesn't seem to be able to recognize his own opinions for what they are.

You repeatedly misstated important distinctions that comprise my argument and position. I set out those points of distinction in particular.

I don't even disagree with your opinion.

Nothing in anything outside of this sort of declaration supports that. First, because you don't understand my argument. If you did you wouldn't misstate it and then insist your misstatement was correct.

I feel much the same about respecting the potentiality of individual personhood as you do. But I understand that this is my opinion, and as such I do not have the right to force everyone else to comply with it.

So if most people were fine with rape you'd have to go along? I don't believe you would. That's a great recipe for making Nazis but a horrible notion else.

It is your inability to acknowledge that your own opinion IS AN OPINION that I am objecting to

I've stated more than once that it is my opinion.

Your problem is you think that means something that it doesn't. So it's a bit like your notion of my argument. If you reach an opinion through a reasoned process than the reason remains. And so my argument and position, the opinion I hold being the sum of that reasoning and not the other way around.

, because it's through that willful ignorance that you justify wanting to force all the women of the Earth to comply with it.

There's nothing ignorant in it, though it is willful. All reason is, necessarily.

 

[Crucible]

a fairly horrific abrogation of another's right to exist

Birth control = murder

 

[Town Heretic]

Birth control = murder

Too broad. A condom that prevents isn't murdering anyone, by way of.

 

[Crucible]

Too broad. A condom that prevents isn't murdering anyone, by way of.

So basically, you have to invent a rule that personhood begins at conception to call it murder.

Which doesn't make sense either, because 'personhood' begins most reasonably at birth. That is the genesis of one's persona, when they are fully formed and in the world.

 

[Town Heretic]

So basically, you have to invent a rule that personhood begins at conception to call it murder.

Well, no. I haven't spoken to "personhood" and you can't kill a being before it begins. So you don't need invention, only a sense of time and when the discussion of right can rationally begin.

Which doesn't make sense either, because 'personhood' begins most reasonably at birth.

No. That's just where you apply your subjective valuation. I'd argue Roe's notion is logically superior to your advance, but any line of demarcation is relatively arbitrary. A new biological being (and the commiserate discussion and squabbling) begins with conception.

That is the genesis of one's persona, when they are fully formed and in the world.

Actually, they're often as fully formed prior to that. Many labors are induced.

 

[quip]

Px: "So there is no lack of rationality, here. The problem is that our rationale is not based on our knowledge, but on emotionally sponsored opinion"


TH: "My argument completely and demonstrably isn't, but I'll grant some, maybe most are. :idunno:"

This is the sum of your defense against an emotional influence. :idunno:

"Most are"...yet your brand of sublime reasoning transcends mundane emotionalism?

If so, then what exactly is it TH? Is this an hypothetical; a philosophical thought experiment/mental exercise with no basis for practical application? Or, are you simply exalting the advance of reason in lieu of a personal conviction?

 

[quip]

for example:


:thumb:

Well, there's an economy of words...then there's a cheap use of them.

You seem keen for the latter.

 

[Lon]

Well, there's an economy of words...then there's a cheap use of them.

You seem keen for the latter.

:nono: I'd intimate invidiousness of TH, which is communal balanced between envy and recognition collectively. He works harder at it than you and I so I think we either rise to the challenge or drop a bit of the green from the eye. There is no slighting Doser for recognizing the difference between prowess. Whatever you fancy yourself, You (nor I) have this kind of commitment or resolve to complain or envy much. I simply saw your redress as Peter Banning: Rufio, if I'm a maggot burger why don't you just eat me! You two-toned zebra-headed, slime-coated, pimple-farmin' paramecium brain, munchin' on your own mucus, suffering from Peter Pan envy!

The one is adversarial and misplaced. He really does write well, it is his trade and craft.

 

[Town Heretic]

Px: "So there is no lack of rationality, here. The problem is that our rationale is not based on our knowledge, but on emotionally sponsored opinion"

TH: "My argument completely and demonstrably isn't, but I'll grant some, maybe most are. :idunno:"

This is the sum of your defense against an emotional influence. :idunno:

There's no real defense against someone reading in a thing like that. All you can do is note an argument that isn't an expression of it, which I did.

"Most are"...yet your brand of sublime reasoning transcends mundane emotionalism?

What I actually wrote wasn't that most are but that "maybe most are". That is, I'm willing to concede it may be the case as a rule. I don't know. I only know that it isn't the case for my own advance, which is all I'm ultimately responsible for within the argument.

If so, then what exactly is it TH?

An argument that can be uttered by a Christian, an atheist, anyone who is approaching the consideration rationally and being mindful of our compact.

Is this an hypothetical; a philosophical thought experiment/mental exercise with no basis for practical application?

I've noted the basis, the root. It's the same and only thing by which it can be considered. The application is unmistakably summed within it.

Or, are you simply exalting the advance of reason in lieu of a personal conviction?

I haven't been remotely guarded on the point. I'm a Christian. As a Christian I also have a religious/moral argument and objection. But offering that to people who don't share the context isn't, to my mind, a fruitful proposition. And given the nature of our compact and laws I think the best appeal within that context is a secular and completely rational one.

 

[PureX]

Too broad. A condom that prevents isn't murdering anyone, by way of.

Why not? The use of a condom is denying a potential human being's life. Just as you claim aborting a 4 week old fetus is. Your opinion is based on this respect for even the potential of a human life. So if the conjoining of the male and female DNA is considered enough potential human life to warrant legal protection, why wouldn't the act of conjoining the male and female DNA also be enough potential for human life to warrant legal protection?

Why is evidence of the actual conjoining of DNA required to warrant legal protection, in your mind, when evidence of the existence of an actual autonomous human being is not required for that same legal protection, later on in the process of development? It seems your opinion is showing some inconsistency, here.

 

[ok doser]

Why not? The use of a condom is denying a potential human being's life. Just as you claim aborting a 4 week old fetus is. Your opinion is based on this respect for even the potential of a human life.

i know that purex will never be able to understand this, but for those following along, town isn't arguing for the respect of a "potential" life

he's arguing that upon conception a life exists, a living organism, a new creation that has its own identity independent of either of its parents

it is alive

it is human

and purex has to ignore the fact that it is alive and human to continue with his foolish argument

 

[Town Heretic]

Why not?

Doser actually got the response to this perfectly...that alone should end any argument on the point. It's the biggest mic drop in TOL history...seriously, do you realize how right I have to be for that to happen? lain:

The use of a condom is denying a potential human being's life.
Just as you claim aborting a 4 week old fetus is.

You're missing the application. It's as likely as not that a 4 week old actually has the right that is denied him or her through an abortion. There is no point prior to conception where that's the case. It isn't the potential to become, but the potential that the being spoken of is actually invested with right. A new form of life begins with conception and the argument over whether that being has right can begin.

 

[PureX]

Doser actually got the response to this perfectly...that alone should end any argument on the point. It's the biggest mic drop in TOL history...seriously, do you realize how right I have to be for that to happen? lain:


You're missing the application. It's as likely as not that a 4 week old actually has the right that is denied him or her through an abortion. There is no point prior to conception where that's the case. It isn't the potential to become, but the potential that the being spoken of is actually invested with right. A new form of life begins with conception and the argument over whether that being has right can begin.

It's amazing to me how thoroughly convinced you are that simply repeating your opinion over and over somehow validates it all the more. And then excuses you from actually having to address any logical objection posed to it.

(By the way, the moment you find yourself agreeing with 'Dozer', you should immediately recognize that your mind has fallen into an open sewer. Because that's his realm of 'intellect'.)

 

[Town Heretic]

It's amazing to me how thoroughly convinced you are that simply repeating your opinion over and over somehow validates it all the more.

I was actually just noting you taking potential out of the context and correcting the mistake that flowed from it. I didn't actually repeat the argument. What makes the argument valid is your and, so far, others inability to invalidate the reasoning in it.

It doesn't need more than that.

And then excuses you from actually having to address any logical objection posed to it.

You can't, literally won't, list a single logical objection to it that I have left on the table. In fact, you haven't. You've just made another declaration.

(By the way, the moment you find yourself agreeing with 'Dozer', you should immediately recognize that your mind has fallen into an open sewer. Because that's his realm of 'intellect'.)

Sod believes all sorts of things that I agree with. A rational human being agrees or disagrees on the merits of a proposition.

 

[TomO]

It's amazing to me how thoroughly convinced you are that simply repeating your opinion over and over somehow validates it all the more. And then excuses you from actually having to address any logical objection posed to it.

Have you made one of those?....Not seeing it. :nono:

 

[quip]

A new form of life begins with conception and the argument over whether that being has right can begin.

Okay, then why should I grant the new union of sperm and ovum with rights equal to you and I?

 

[quip]

:nono: I'd intimate invidiousness of TH, which is communal balanced between envy and recognition collectively. He works harder at it than you and I so I think we either rise to the challenge or drop a bit of the green from the eye. There is no slighting Doser for recognizing the difference between prowess. Whatever you fancy yourself, You (nor I) have this kind of commitment or resolve to complain or envy much. I simply saw your redress as Peter Banning: Rufio, if I'm a maggot burger why don't you just eat me! You two-toned zebra-headed, slime-coated, pimple-farmin' paramecium brain, munchin' on your own mucus, suffering from Peter Pan envy!

The one is adversarial and misplaced. He really does write well, it is his trade and craft.

This reads like an M. C. Escher masterpiece. Through what survived the incomprehensibility, I'm to deduce that you're celebrating TH's mode of style...of course, at the expense of me and mine.

I agree TH can really apply a determined sheen to a subject he claims no personal devotion to ... then again, you do know what they say about polished turds....don't you?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Okay, then why should I grant the new union of sperm and ovum with rights equal to you and I?

The new human life should be granted the same rights as a newborn baby, which does not include the right to vote.

Which of the rights of a newborn baby do you think should be denied to the new human life created through the union of sperm and ovum?

 

[quip]

The new human life should be granted the same rights as a newborn baby.

Why?

Which of the rights of a newborn baby do you think should be denied to the new human life created through the union of sperm and ovum?

None. Though it's interesting you're arguing from the distinction between the two. Why is that?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Which of the rights of a newborn baby do you think should be denied to the new human life created through the union of sperm and ovum?

None.

Do you have any objections to killing a newborn baby?