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

[henry quirk]

"That's not just persistence, that is somebody telling me what I am allowed to think with my own head."

I think we got incompatible 'strategies' here. I can only suggest the following...

Flash: we don't all see abortion as child murder

Mannie: this is impossible and everyone who says that is just a murderer with a guilty conscience

Flash: I'm gonna need some kind of evidence to support that claim

...or...

Mannie: which is better, killing the unborn baby or givin' it up for adoption?

Flash: that is a skewed question, sir, designed to illicit a certain response...I recast your question to strip away the hullabaloo and answer thusly...

That is: challenge him and don't expect him to play by rules that no body knows anyway.

Mannie is crafty, but honest. You: be equally crafty & honest.

###

Veg,

"Does that little gem include males too?"

Absolutely.

Again (expanded for the challenged)...

Wanna avoid bringing human beings into the world?
(then don't, boys & girls, have sex...there's no surer way to avoid the heartbreak of unwanted conception than keepin' that willie in-doors and that ya-ya between closed legs)

Wanna circumvent the consequences of one's own actions?
(spermicides & condoms are a great place to begin! easy & fun!)

Wanna exercise control over one's self by exercising control over another (actual or potential)?
(grow up, you twerp...self-control is just that [control of self]...try exercisin' it before the nasty, not after)

###

A_uk,

"China seems to be doing pretty well nowadays."

As Veg points out: China has incorporated capitalism into their economy. Their success is directly linked to this.

Kerala: agsin, the commie party being the current top dog ain't the same as a full-blown, politburo-fearin', commie-fest. It just isn't.

[Walker]

You are insane.

There used to be a sculptor on the forum and in some ways you sound like him, in other ways you do not.

Because life is the measure, the purpose, and the meaning of existence then opposing life is insane although necessary* as proven by the fact of its existence. Therefore by this criterion and in the context of topic, abortion advocates are insane.

* as a result of causation

[Immanuel Can]

"China seems to be doing pretty well nowadays."

As Veg points out: China has incorporated capitalism into their economy. Their success is directly linked to this.

Well, China's also remains as brutal a Communist dictatorship as it always was, despite the invention of "Red Capitalism," as they call it. Minorities, political objectors and Christians are still routinely persecuted and "disappeared" there. Human rights have not appeared in concert with government wealth accumulation. Government plans still brutally displace populations, and pollution is truly horrid in the big cities. Meanwhile, poverty and lack of opportunity still afflict the countryside. No wonder so many Chinese are migrating, or sending their children overseas, if they can do it.

So they have more money now, but no more human rights. And in that much, Veggie is right; the people who thought that capitalism would automatically produce democracy and human rights have been shown to be wrong about that...at least so far.

Are they "doing well"? Economically, perhaps. Socially, decidedly not.

[Sculptor]

You are insane.

There used to be a sculptor on the forum and in some ways you sound like him, in other ways you do not.

Because life is the measure, the purpose, and the meaning of existence then opposing life is insane although necessary* as proven by the fact of its existence. Therefore by this criterion and in the context of topic, abortion advocates are insane.

* as a result of causation

This is useless in two clear ways.
1) It's just wrong. There can be no "proven purpose" to life.
2) It does not address the issue at hand which is a major logical flaw in your train of thought.

[Immanuel Can]

This is useless in two clear ways.
1) It's just wrong. There can be no "proven purpose" to life.

Well, might I ask, how did you come to know this for a fact?

What evidence implies it to you?

[henry quirk]

agreed

[Sculptor]

This is useless in two clear ways.
1) It's just wrong. There can be no "proven purpose" to life.

Well, might I ask, how did you come to know this for a fact?

What evidence implies it to you?

Because it is a stupid statement. Absurd claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence of this in any way.
I suppose you think "god" is some sort of answer? Do you know the mind of god?
LOL

[Immanuel Can]

Because it is a stupid statement.

Why? That's not self-evident.

Absurd claims require extraordinary evidence.

I see. You're quoting Sagan.

The quotation is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The problem is that Sagan never defined what an "extraordinary claim" is. But I do think the statement "I know that there is no purpose to life" would certainly qualify as a very "extraordinary" claim, and would require some "extraordinary" evidence to believe.

However, I don't find the evidence offered here "extraordinary." In fact, I don't even see any "ordinary" evidence. Just rhetorical objections, so far as I can see. Have I missed something you said?

There is no evidence of this in any way.

Well, another common quotation, then: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

All that a recognition of a lack of evidence really means is that you, personally, do not have evidence. I can believe that, and thank you for your candour. However, it does not imply such does not, or could not exist. It just means you don't happen to know it. Fair enough?

[Sculptor]

Because it is a stupid statement.

Why? That's not self-evident.

Absurd claims require extraordinary evidence.

I see. You're quoting Sagan.

The quotation is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The problem is that Sagan never defined what an "extraordinary claim" is. But I do think the statement "I know that there is no purpose to life" would certainly qualify as a very "extraordinary" claim, and would require some "extraordinary" evidence to believe.

However, I don't find the evidence offered here "extraordinary." In fact, I don't even see any "ordinary" evidence. Just rhetorical objections, so far as I can see. Have I missed something you said?

There is no evidence of this in any way.

Well, another common quotation, then: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

All that a recognition of a lack of evidence really means is that you, personally, do not have evidence. I can believe that, and thank you for your candour. However, it does not imply such does not, or could not exist. It just means you don't happen to know it. Fair enough?

In other words you have fuck all to say about this topic too.

And nothing whatever to say in defence of the absurd claim.
Stop wasting my time.

[Immanuel Can]

In other words you have fuck all to say about this topic too.

I have a great deal to say about it, actually. But for the moment, I was only interested in your own bold claim that you knew that life has no "proven purpose." I wanted to understand what you meant by that extraordinary claim.

And nothing whatever to say in defence of the absurd claim.

It was your own claim. We were talking about whether you actually knew what you said you knew.

I made no counterclaim, so far. As I say, I could and those who know me will tell you I'm not shy to do so...but I'd like to hear you out on the subject first. I want to know if you know what you say you know. If you do know it, you'll have reasons, and they'll be conclusive.

But where are they?

[Sculptor]

In other words you have fuck all to say about this topic too.

I have a great deal to say about it, actually. But for the moment, I was only interested in your own bold claim that you knew that life has no "proven purpose." I wanted to understand what you meant by that extraordinary claim.

And nothing whatever to say in defence of the absurd claim.

It was your own claim. We were talking about whether you actually knew what you said you knew.

I made no counterclaim, so far. As I say, I could and those who know me will tell you I'm not shy to do so...but I'd like to hear you out on the subject first. I want to know if you know what you say you know. If you do know it, you'll have reasons, and they'll be conclusive.

But where are they?

You are unworthy as a opponent.
Two things you needs to know.
1) Keep your nose out of other people's argument.
2) In all cases the person making the claim is the one who has to defend it.

[Sculptor]

You are insane.

There used to be a sculptor on the forum and in some ways you sound like him, in other ways you do not.

Because life is the measure, the purpose, and the meaning of existence then opposing life is insane although necessary* as proven by the fact of its existence. Therefore by this criterion and in the context of topic, abortion advocates are insane.

* as a result of causation

Where is your proof that life has a purpose what what is it?

[Immanuel Can]

In other words you have fuck all to say about this topic too.

I have a great deal to say about it, actually. But for the moment, I was only interested in your own bold claim that you knew that life has no "proven purpose." I wanted to understand what you meant by that extraordinary claim.

And nothing whatever to say in defence of the absurd claim.

It was your own claim. We were talking about whether you actually knew what you said you knew.

I made no counterclaim, so far. As I say, I could and those who know me will tell you I'm not shy to do so...but I'd like to hear you out on the subject first. I want to know if you know what you say you know. If you do know it, you'll have reasons, and they'll be conclusive.

But where are they?

2) In all cases the person making the claim is the one who has to defend it.

But YOU made the claim! You said you knew that life has "no proven purpose."

Problematically for you, you made a claim of negative knowledge -- a claim that you know something does NOT exist. But you made the problem there, by making the claim.

So, according to you, you must defend your own negative knowledge claim.

I agree.

So where's your defence?

[Sculptor]

I have a great deal to say about it, actually. But for the moment, I was only interested in your own bold claim that you knew that life has no "proven purpose." I wanted to understand what you meant by that extraordinary claim.


It was your own claim. We were talking about whether you actually knew what you said you knew.

I made no counterclaim, so far. As I say, I could and those who know me will tell you I'm not shy to do so...but I'd like to hear you out on the subject first. I want to know if you know what you say you know. If you do know it, you'll have reasons, and they'll be conclusive.

But where are they?

2) In all cases the person making the claim is the one who has to defend it.

But YOU made the claim! You said you knew that life has "no proven purpose."

Problematically for you, you made a claim of negative knowledge -- a claim that you know something does NOT exist. But you made the problem there, by making the claim.

So, according to you, you must defend your own negative knowledge claim.

I agree.

So where's your defence?

Does ANYONE like you??
LOL

[Immanuel Can]

Does ANYONE like you??
LOL

So...

A gratuitous ad hominem fallacy, but no answer?

I was hoping against hope that perhaps you had a thought I hadn't seen before. Somewhat disappointing, I must confess.

However, if that's the sum of your present insight on the subject, I suppose that's the end of the matter.

I wish you well.