Page 43 of 54

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:56 pm
by Lacewing
Walker wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:35 pm
God is divine, and I have the courage to say it.

You told me to fuck off and then you keep engaging. Are you a last word freak?
Asking you to explain your notions of "God" after you claimed that I was projecting false notions onto you, is not an attempt to have the last word. But your childish attempt to falsely frame it as that (to get me to stop asking) does not go unnoticed. :lol: Your slithering deceptive nature does have a role in religious beliefs and stories. That's pretty much what you seem to represent much of the time. It would be great to see if there's anything more than that.

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 5:05 pm
by Immanuel Can
Walker wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:35 pm
God is divine.
A quick count shows five uses of the second-person pronoun ("you") in LW's very short last message. That's a pretty good indicator of just what I suggested: LW is going ad hominem, opting to insult you personally instead of addressing the issue.

Just walk away. The Divine counsel is this: "Disperse no nacreous spheroids in porcine precincts."

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 5:09 pm
by Lacewing
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:46 pm
When people get to writing a lot of messages rife with references to "you" and containing insults, you can be pretty sure the discussion has been illegitimately redirected into the ad hominem.

LW does that.
Ah, the master snake speaks! :lol:
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:46 pm
My encouragement to you would be not to go with him/her on that crazy trip.
Because you're so intoxicated with your crazy trip which is superior to all else, yes?

Do you think Walker hasn't been a conscious participant in creating this path? Regardless of whether you appreciate my style, wouldn't you think it reasonable to ask him to respond to challenges about what he has inaccurately said? Or do you guys get to excuse yourselves from such expectations because you believe in a god who is supposedly directing and sanctioning your actions?

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 5:21 pm
by Walker
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 5:05 pm
Walker wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:35 pm
God is divine.
A quick count shows five uses of the second-person pronoun ("you") in LW's very short last message. That's a pretty good indicator of just what I suggested: LW is going ad hominem, opting to insult you personally instead of addressing the issue.

Just walk away. The Divine counsel is this: "Disperse no nacreous spheroids in porcine precincts."
Good advice for the rational. There's no evidence that her changing of dictionary definitions to remove God is unique to the word divine, thus making rational communication an oxymoron.

make of this what you will...

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:50 pm
by henry quirk
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3211703

Abstract
Many Americans disagree on ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ because the question is subject to interpretive ambiguity arising from Hume’s is-ought problem. There are two distinct interpretations of the question: descriptive (i.e., ‘When is a fetus classified as a human?’) and normative (i.e., ‘When ought a fetus be worthy of ethical and legal consideration?’). To determine if one view is more prevalent today, 2,899 American adults were surveyed and asked to select the group most qualified to answer the question of when a human’s life begins. The majority selected biologists (81%), which suggested Americans primarily hold a descriptive view. Indeed, the majority justified their selection by describing biologists as objective scientists that can use their biological expertise to determine when a human's life begins. Academic biologists were recruited to participate in a study on their descriptive view of when life begins. A sample of 5,502 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions assessed statements representing the biological view ‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’. This view was used because previous polls and surveys suggest many Americans and medical experts hold this view. Each of the three statements representing that view was affirmed by a consensus of biologists (75-91%). The participants were separated into 60 groups and each statement was affirmed by a consensus of each group, including biologists that identified as very pro-choice (69-90%), very pro-life (92-97%), very liberal (70-91%), very conservative (94-96%), strong Democrats (74-91%), and strong Republicans (89-94%). Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502). Historically, the descriptive view on when life begins has dictated the normative view that drives America's abortion laws: (1) abortion was illegal at ‘quickening’ under 18th century common law, (2) abortion was illegal at ‘conception’ in state laws from the late 1800’s to the mid-1900’s, and (3) abortion is currently legal before ‘viability’ due to 20th century U.S. Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. While this article’s findings suggest a fetus is biologically classified as a human at fertilization, this descriptive view does not entail the normative view that fetuses deserve legal consideration throughout pregnancy. Contemporary ethical and legal concepts that motivate reproductive rights might cause Americans to disregard the descriptive view or disentangle it from the normative view. However, these findings can help Americans move past the factual dispute on when life begins and focus on the operative question of when a fetus deserves legal consideration.

Re: make of this what you will...

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:35 pm
by vegetariantaxidermy
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:50 pm
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3211703

Abstract
Many Americans disagree on ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ because the question is subject to interpretive ambiguity arising from Hume’s is-ought problem. There are two distinct interpretations of the question: descriptive (i.e., ‘When is a fetus classified as a human?’) and normative (i.e., ‘When ought a fetus be worthy of ethical and legal consideration?’). To determine if one view is more prevalent today, 2,899 American adults were surveyed and asked to select the group most qualified to answer the question of when a human’s life begins. The majority selected biologists (81%), which suggested Americans primarily hold a descriptive view. Indeed, the majority justified their selection by describing biologists as objective scientists that can use their biological expertise to determine when a human's life begins. Academic biologists were recruited to participate in a study on their descriptive view of when life begins. A sample of 5,502 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions assessed statements representing the biological view ‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’. This view was used because previous polls and surveys suggest many Americans and medical experts hold this view. Each of the three statements representing that view was affirmed by a consensus of biologists (75-91%). The participants were separated into 60 groups and each statement was affirmed by a consensus of each group, including biologists that identified as very pro-choice (69-90%), very pro-life (92-97%), very liberal (70-91%), very conservative (94-96%), strong Democrats (74-91%), and strong Republicans (89-94%). Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502). Historically, the descriptive view on when life begins has dictated the normative view that drives America's abortion laws: (1) abortion was illegal at ‘quickening’ under 18th century common law, (2) abortion was illegal at ‘conception’ in state laws from the late 1800’s to the mid-1900’s, and (3) abortion is currently legal before ‘viability’ due to 20th century U.S. Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. While this article’s findings suggest a fetus is biologically classified as a human at fertilization, this descriptive view does not entail the normative view that fetuses deserve legal consideration throughout pregnancy. Contemporary ethical and legal concepts that motivate reproductive rights might cause Americans to disregard the descriptive view or disentangle it from the normative view. However, these findings can help Americans move past the factual dispute on when life begins and focus on the operative question of when a fetus deserves legal consideration.
Do you have a point little man? An amoeba is 'life'. A fertilised hen's egg is 'life'. So what?

Veg

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:29 pm
by henry quirk
And then there were two on my ignore list.

bye

Re: Veg

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:39 pm
by Dubious
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:29 pm
And then there were two on my ignore list.
Is it ok if I volunteer to be added? :mrgreen:

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:42 pm
by Walker
The point is obvious. Progressives are terrified that abortion rights will go through the legislative process* that reflects the will of We The People, rather than the privacy-rights-based opinion of 5 people on the SCOTUS.

* In the USofA.

Dub

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:51 pm
by henry quirk
"Is it ok if I volunteer to be added? :mrgreen:"

I only add the useless to that list: you ain't useless, so... :smile:

Walker

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:59 pm
by henry quirk
"The point is obvious. Progressives are terrified that abortion rights will go through the legislative process* that reflects the will of We The People, rather than the privacy-rights-based opinion of 5 people on the SCOTUS."

More than that: there's a fear that decades of domesticatin' folks to accept abortion as a natural & normal alternative has been a waste of time. If folks value themselves, value their children (in the womb & out), it's way harder to corral 'em.

And: you should call 'em what they are: commies (dupes, synpathizers, & card carriers).

Re: Walker

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:43 pm
by Immanuel Can
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:59 pm
...there's a fear that decades of domesticatin' folks to accept abortion as a natural & normal alternative has been a waste of time.
They know that nothing they have done has changed the objective truth about the status of a fetus one iota. They can move opinion by using propaganda...but they can't move the facts. In that sense, it's always a waste of time.

Re: Veg

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:12 pm
by vegetariantaxidermy
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:29 pm
And then there were two on my ignore list.

bye
Always fun to stick your fingers in your ears and go 'nah nah nah nah...' with your eyes squeezed tightly shut :roll:
You really expect us to believe that you weep inconsoably over the embryos of those unmarried black women you dislike so much? Or does abortion rob you of the joy you feel when their children get shot by redneck police? Or the chance to whine about your taxes going towards their food and health care? With you, anything is a chance to whine over those 'thieving commies' in power. Whine about accessible abortion, whine about accessible contraception, whine about accessible welfare, whine about accessible health care, whine about accessible education.....

Re: Dub

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:33 pm
by Dubious
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:51 pm
"Is it ok if I volunteer to be added? :mrgreen:"

I only add the useless to that list: you ain't useless, so... :smile:
You lie! That's not what my mother told me! :twisted:

Mannie

Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:04 am
by henry quirk
"They know that nothing they have done has changed the objective truth about the status of a fetus one iota. They can move opinion by using propaganda...but they can't move the facts. In that sense, it's always a waste of time.

That's the thing: they don't have to change reality. All they need to do is adulterate thinkin'. If folks could be convinced that fire freezes then the reality 'fire burns', while apparent, is ignored. In effect the convincing is induced madness.

Look around: all manner of real things are ignored, newspeaked down the memory hole. Is it any wonder psych-disorders are prevalent & muliple kinds of soma available? Whole whack of folks have been hoodwinked (or threatened, or shamed) into believin' shit they, in their guts, know is shit.

'Fire freezes', they say and they'll friggin' kill you for remindin' 'em 'fire burns'.