Can people who disagree on abortion stop attacking each other?

[Belk]

Explain what you mean there^

Bodily autonomy rights transcend the death of the individual. Even after you die it is illegal to use your corpse in a manner contrary to your wishes. Even though there is a shortage of organ donors unless you agree to it while alive your organs will not be harvested.

You're on a thread about abortion, arguing an angle of why abortion is OK.

No. I am arguing that consent does not work the way it was originally stated.

Tell me you're not saying what you've been saying peripherally?

That is not what I am saying "peripherally".

The mother did not give "consent" to the baby growing in her womb, therefore, she has the "right" to "bodily autonomy" by aborting it.

I have made no mention of if I believe abortion to be OK or not. My singular argument is that consent is a posative claim and is not the same as knowing a possible consequence.

 

[Belk]

More than your definition of consent has to do with the topic at hand, obviously.

So that would be a "No", you will not bother to explain what you mean?

 

[Belk]

Post #1,181

If this is beyond your capabilities we are done here.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Does not the sacred text speak of infants taking the "breath of life" when they are born? (At the same time they begin breathing.)

The "sacred texts" are irrelevant to biology and embryology. Let's keep the conversation in line with what can be observed scientifically.

 

[YahuahSaves]

They go to the hospital for medical care. You seemingly would deny them this care.

The driver also gets fined and/or jailed in the event of a death caused by their passenger/s (especially minors) not wearing seatbelts.

 

[YahuahSaves]

The discussion on abortion is periphery to the discussion I am trying to have which is about consent.

Exactly, you were defending the other posters comment on consent.

peripheral
adjective

Related to, located in, or constituting an outer boundary or periphery.

Even after you die it is illegal to use your corpse in a manner contrary to your wishes

How many funerals have you been to? What's in a persons legal will and what happens in reality don't always line up.

I have made no mention of if I believe abortion to be OK or not

The amount of "agreement" and "likes" you've given to the prochoicers argument that the unborn aren't a human being and living - you've made your position very clear. Stop assuming others aren't as observant as you are and won't notice.

 

[Belk]

Exactly, you were defending the other posters comment on consent.

peripheral
adjective

Related to, located in, or constituting an outer boundary or periphery.

No. I am making my own argument on consent. Other posters are capable of defending their own points.

How many funerals have you been to? What's in a persons legal will and what happens in reality don't always line up.

Several. I have yet to see one where the deceased had their body handled contrary to their expressed wishes. most likely because that would be illegal.

The amount of "agreement" and "likes" you've given to the prochoicers argument that the unborn aren't a human being and living - you've made your position very clear. Stop assuming others aren't as observant as you are and won't notice.

I have not stated my position and my reason for liking others position are my own. However, given your inability to follow the rules this discussion is over.

 

[YahuahSaves]

No. I am making my own argument on consent. Other posters are capable of defending their own points.

You jumped to the other posters defence.
Here's the link:

Cause and effect are not the issue. Permission is the issue, which can't be granted to "someone" who does not exist.

Response:

People of childbearing age grant permission to conceive every time they have sex. The same way a speeder running red lights is playing Russian Roulette with other cars and people lives.

Your response:

Consequence and consent are two completely separate things. For one consent can be revoked at any time.

Also: lots of "winner & agrees".

Are you still denying you're for abortion?

this discussion is over

Cya!

 

[Kylie]

He's on a thread arguing for abortion.

If you go back to where the conversation on consent started, here is the link:


He is in agreement with the poster who @coffee4u was responding to. Who said quote: "Cause and effect are not the issue. Permission is the issue, which can't be granted to "someone" who does not exist."

I don't see him saying anything at all about abortion in those things you quoted.

I also did a search in this thread for any posts by Belk in which he spoke about abortion. The only times he has ever used that word in this thread was when he was pointing out either:

1. The he was talking about consent, not abortion
2. That you were trying to drag him into a discussion about abortion when he was trying to have a discussion about consent.

 

[Kylie]

@YahuahSaves since you decided to give my post an optimistic react, I'd like to ask you to please quote the post where Belk stated that he supported abortion.

 

[YahuahSaves]

@YahuahSaves since you decided to give my post an optimistic react, I'd like to ask you to please quote the post where Belk stated that he supported abortion.

That you were trying to drag him into a discussion about abortion when he was trying to have a discussion about consent.

Nope^ no dragging involved, I'm afraid.

He has been involved in a thread about abortion. if you truly believe he wasn't participating by defending and giving "agree" and "winner" reactions on the posts of the prochoice remarks, then by your definition he was trying to derail the thread by changing the subject at hand, which is against forum rules.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

So you're stipulating that at least one life begins after conception in the case of identical twins?

According to every textbook on embryology and common sense, yes.
According to every textbook on embryology and common sense at least one life begins at conception in the case of identical twins.

Never thought about it, but they are not human beings, so not really relevant.

Both amoeba and human are simply an organism of a certain species. The splitting of amoebae is identical to the splitting of human zygotes. So yes, this is very relevant. If your claim is not logically coherent with both of these species then it is a false claim. So far, it is not logically coherent.

 

[NxNW]

According to every textbook on embryology and common sense, yes.

And since we agree that this life begins after conception, not at conception, I've proved my point.

Both amoeba and human are simply an organism of a certain species. The splitting of amoebae is identical to the splitting of human zygotes. So yes, this is very relevant. If your claim is not logically coherent with both of these species then it is a false claim. So far, it is not logically coherent.

A human being has a certain connotation that does not apply to amoeba or zygote. A human being should be counted as part of the population and be counted as a dependent on one's taxes. A zygote does not meet this criteria. If a zygote is formed but then self-aborts a couple days later, the human population was unaffected. A human being never existed.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

And since we agree that this life begins after conception, not at conception, I've proved my point.

Sorry, I misread your previous post. I meant to say that "at least one life begins at conception according to every embryology textbook and common sense". Whether the twin's life begins at conception or splitting is a valid question, but doesn't prove your point. My case rests on the beginning of at least one human life at conception, which is the case even with twins. The original zygote doesn't die nor disappear at twinning, does it? The original zygote is at the very least one of the two twins - having begun at conception. Therefore, killing the zygote before twinning would be killing one of the twins.

A human being has a certain connotation that does not apply to amoeba or zygote. A human being should be counted as part of the population and be counted as a dependent on one's taxes. A zygote does not meet this criteria. If a zygote is formed but then self-aborts a couple days later, the human population was unaffected. A human being never existed.

You seem to confuse "human" with "person". The term "human" has no such connotation, it is a biological term and not a legal term (unlike "person"). A human is an organism of the species homo sapiens, not more and not less.

 

[morse86]

There shouldn't be any debate:

Jeremiah 1:5 KJV:
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Isaiah 44:24:
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Isaiah 44:2:
Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

Isaiah 49:5:
And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.

Galatians 1:15:
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace


Psalms 127:3-5:
Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

 

[Desk trauma]

There shouldn't be any debate:

Yet here we are, now what?

 

[morse86]

Yet here we are, now what?

Well, did you read the verses I referenced?? Some things are prophecy and open for interpretation, some things are clear cut scripture and not open for debate....it is pointless to debate as man is not smarter than God.

 

[Desk trauma]

Well, did you read the verses I referenced??

Yes.

Some things are prophecy and open for interpretation, some things are clear cut scripture and not open for debate....it is pointless to debate as man is not smarter than God.

Again, yet here we are, now what?

 

[YahuahSaves]

You seem to confuse "human" with "person". The term "human" has no such connotation, it is a biological term and not a legal term (unlike "person"). A human is an organism of the species homo sapiens, not more and not less.

A person is still a living human being.

person
noun

1) A living human. Often used in combination.
2) An individual of specified character.
3) The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

A person is still a living human being.

person
noun

1) A living human. Often used in combination.
2) An individual of specified character.
3) The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.

Absolutely But I prefer to avoid juristic terms in a discussion about biology. Most jurisdictions would say that "every person is a living human being, but not every human being is a person". But that's a whole new conversation to be had. My argument is based merely on the fact that a zygote is a human.