Abortion Drives Bigger Wedge Between Red And Blue States

That link was not to the UVVA.

 

That was the link you provided. Unfortunately for your case that link refuted what you were claiming.

Regardless - If you would like me to come up with the best argument for your claim I can do so.

It is kind of strange that you come on a debating site and expect others provide arguments to support your claims.

 

Again, I have not need for more arguments to support my calim (that a child in the womb is a child and that killing one is murder).... I'm satisfied that (with the language of the UVVA and nearly forty State's laws) our side has already won that debate.

 

If you are satisfied with fallacy that is your right.

The statement "a child in the womb is a child" is fallacy= Assuming the premise. (The entity in the womb is a child because its a child is a fallacy by definition)...... (The moon is made of green cheese because it is made of green cheese would be another example of the same fallacy)

Stating that the moon is made of green cheese over and over again does not constitute proof of any kind that the moon is really made of green cheese.

I realize that you are happy that your political party gained power and decided to impose right wing religious beliefs on the masses.

"We won so I'm right" does not even address the question of whether or not the single human cell at conception is a living human never mind constitute an argument (valid or otherwise) in support of your claim.

 

There is not fallacy taking place.

That's only a reality in your own head.

You are having a problem with the concept for two different reasons.

1. Because you (for whatever reason) can not be convinced that a child in the first days of their development is a 'child.'
2. Because you don't want to accept the fact (for whatever reason) that a child (person) is also a legal construct. It is what the laws say it is... and our laws say they are children.

You can't comprehend these things - so you call it all a big 'fallacy' - so you don't have to accept it as fact.

I agree.

Were that the case, don't you think the ACLU and Planned Parenthood (and all the leftist supporters) could get the SCOTUS to throw it out on the basis that the UVVA violates the 'establishment clause' of the 1st Amendment?

Again, I agree.

But that's only your characterization about what's going on.

That's not the reality of it.

I have never said "we won so I'm right."

"I'm right and we won" is more like it - but I've not been saying that either.

My view is that the language of the UVVA (minus the exceptions it makes to allow for abortions) 'settles the debate ' for ME.

 

If a corporation is a "person"...as the Supreme Court and Mitt Romney said...


why don't "pro-lifers" fight against people dissolving corporations?!?!!?!?

 

2)of course I accept that a bill was passed into law that claims the zygote is a human. What you cant seem to figure out is that claiming that this explains why a zygote is a living human is logical fallacy = Appeal to Authority What is weird is that you yourself admitted that laws are not always right so it should be a no brainer.

1) You have presented no valid argument in support of your claim that a zygote is a living human. I would be stupid to be convinced of anything based on logical fallacy.

So far all you have stated is

1) "We won" about 5 or 6 times and
2) you said the UVVA (an bill passed by a partisan political party which was not supported by party not in power and nor is it supported by a huge number of legal and scientific experts) calls the zygote a human.

Nowhere in anything you have said is the rational given as to why the zygote is a living human.

For the umpteenth time. A zygote is not a living human because some political party passes a bill (UVVA in this case)

If you want to believe that the vast majority of Republicans in Congress voting to pass the UVVA makes the zygote a living human, go ahead.

What is far from clear however is why this Appeal to Authority would convince anyone who has an understanding of logic that a zygote is a living human ?

It is not that I can not be convinced. It is that you have yet to make an non fallacious argument in support of your premise

???? what language and why would you only take part of the bill and not all.

What I would be interesting in seeing is if congress ever gave any reasons for the language in the UVVA. Do you have any idea if they ever did this ?

 

It does more than just that.

Correct?

I never said that is "why" a zygote is a living human being.

Did I?

No.

I didn't.

By the way, why do you keep leaving the word "being" out of it? The UVVA defines them as "a human being" not as 'a living human.'

What is weird is that you yourself agree that laws are not always wrong so it should be a no brainer.

1) You have presented no valid argument in support of your claim that a zygote is not a living human. I would be stupid to be convinced of anything based on logical fallacy and denials.

I already told you WHY I don't feel the need to do that.

When even Planned Parenthood accepts that a child in that stage of their life is a living (human) organism... I see no need to debate it (that aspect) any further.

I disagree with even that on one level.

Human beings are biological organisms (entities).

"Persons" are a legal construct. In addition to the biological entities that they are - they are also what the laws say they are. So, even if the biological aspect was wrong - a "child" in any stage of their development while in the womb would still be "a human being" BY LAW - as defined by the UVVA.

Got it?

Now, you can challenge the law and TRY to prove why it should hold otherwise.... But until you do that? It settles that aspect - for me.

If you want to believe that the vast majority of Republicans in Congress voting to pass the UVVA makes the zygote a living human, go ahead.

See above.

You have yet to convince me why I would need to subject my arguments to your ridicule and denials any further when defeating my arguments will not result in any changes to the laws that you are so obviously having problems with.

I see the part that allows for voluntary abortions to continue as being contradictive and more significant than that - UnConstitutional.

I never said you were interesting.

To answer your question, everything they do is pretty much a matter of public record.

If you want an argument to rail against - you should consider the actual ones the law was based upon - rather than my own.

 

This has never been a debate about what the law is. I just asked a simple question. Don't feel forced to answer.

You do not have to present any arguments. And certainly you have presented none so far No need to feel persecuted. I was just stating a fact.

I realize that you have not stated why a zygote is a living human. If you wish to keep your reasons to yourself that is fine.

I do not see the point of participating in a debating forum if you do not wish to debate. You can keep the rational for this to yourself as well ..

 

I don't see the point of debating (or even defending) the parts of the laws that I already agree with.

Maybe you feel the need to defend Roe -despite the fact that you agree with it?

Some people on your side of the issue - don't feel the need to defend Roe.

They (like me) don't see it as something that is necessary for them to do.

With that said, there are plenty of other things that I am willing to debate on the abortion issue and some of those things may re-open the door to this again.

Who knows?

 

This debate has never been about what the law is, or should be ?

The question/topic was why the zygote should be considered a living human. You do not want to talk about these things .. got it

 

Is that what I said?

Gifted, when even Planned Parenthood has no problem recognizing a human zygote as an organism....
why should I or anyone else worry about it (in the context of the abortion debate)?

 

Planned parenthood is not an authority by any stretch on what an organism is. As stated earlier, the zygote is not really an organism except if one uses a very broad definition.

Biology is the domain science. Here is the commentary from a Ph.D Biologist and professor at the U of Miami.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Biology-664/Classification-Homo-Sapien-cells.htm

Note that there is some explanation how the conclusion is arrived at.

Regardless: Even if the single cell at conception is classifiable as an organism, this would not make it a living human. If you classify the single cell at conception as an organism then every other human cell would also be an organism as there is little significant difference between the two.

From a scientific perspective (Biology the domain science) the zygote is not a living human as it does not have the traits required to get entrance into that club.
It certainly is not a living human (from medicine) as it lacks a heart and significant brain function to be characterized as a living human.

Science is not going to help you. I was thinking perhaps you might have an argument from philosophy or bioethics that might justify your claim.

 

Perhaps not.

But!

If Planned Parenthood doesn't contest it and they in fact define a zygote as such - themselves?

It seems you would have more to debate with them - than you do with me.

That's your opinion... and that (broad definition) is also all it takes.

Again, you are using opinion in an effort to rebut an established fact that you yourself (broad definitions) have already acknowledged.

The biologist that you've quoted has missed or dismissed the portion of the definition for organisms that says "or can develop" the ability...

organism (n.)
1.a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently

Unfortunately for your denials - a human being in the zygote stage of their life is in fact biologically and legally "a human being."

The difference between a zygote and every other cell in a human body is exactly what the definition says is the difference.

A zygote can "develop an ability to act and function independently" and none of the others "cells" can do the same.

So, it is because of that fact (and part of the definitions) that the zygote is initially a single celled "organism" and the other cells are not.

See above.

This is only your opinion and it's not supported by any of the medical references I have quoted in the past.

You are projecting.

There is none needed.

 

1) The opinion of a Biologist is far more credible than the opinion of Planned parenthood or religious wing nut congressmen.
2) If you would have bothered to read the comments you would find that not just opinion is given. Justification of the position is also given.
3) Dictionary definitions are not meant to be used in a scientific context.

Regardless I have no problem calling the single cell at conception an organism. This does not make the zygote a living human. If it is an organism then other human cells qualify as organisms as well.


4)

This is silly - I give you commentary from a Ph.D biologist and you reply with nothing but your opinion with no facts to justify it.

How is the single cell at conception "biologically" a living human ?

 

1. Their opinions have already lost. The debate is over unless and until it is in the context of overturning the language of the UVVA.
2. See #1. The justifications for their (your?) denials fell short.
3. Scientific definitions are not to be used in science? Okay... (lol) Got it.

Shall I compile a list of all the posts where you have had such a problem?

If you say so.

Ask your biological "father."

 

LOL - a dictionary is not a scientific definition often because it includes "common language usage" = how the word is used rather than what it means.

A good example would be the middle age term "with child" . You of course would like to believe that this "really means" a child exists. It does not

You have presented no science in support of your claim. If all you can come up with is "Ask your father" then it is safe to say that you have no argument.

 

Again... scientific definitions are not science?

That's (expletive omitted) funny.

If you need to believe I (we) have no arguments against your denials... that's fine.

But until the laws are changed again to support your denials?

I'm content that this part of the debate is settled.

 

I gave you a good example where a dictionary definition is not, nor is it intended to be, scientific. A dictionary is to help the person understand what someone means when using a word. This is not a scientific definition in many cases. Sometimes a dictionary definition will be the same as the scientific definition. One needs to grasp the concept that a dictionary definition is not always science before claiming that a dictionary definition is science.

If you wish to claim that a single human cell is an organism this is fine. As stated previously, under a very broad, loose definition (Scientific definitions try to be specific) a single human cell could be made to fit. It is alive, uses energy, and has metabolic processes, and reproduces.

Most human cells would then be organisms under this definition but this does not make these cells living humans.

 

Enough scientists have determined a human being in the zygote stage of their life to be "a human being" - enough - to have it legally recognized as one.

There has not been enough disagreement among scientists to mount a significant opposition to that conclusion. Maybe you could spearhead that effort?

For now, I am satisfied with the conclusions by the scientists AND the law makers who say that a human being in the zygote stage of their life is "a human being."

What else would make "a human being's" biological father - THEIR biological father?

A biological father part in creating their biological CHILD is over at conception.

Logic follows that:

If Conception is all it takes to make him a father - conception is what it takes to make his child HIS child.

Paternity laws reflected this conclusion - long before laws against fetal homicide were written.

 

Hmm .. so if a guy is a chimera and the sperm produced from his body is actually the result of his chimera twin's testes then he is not the biological father, his twin is, even though the law and science does not recognize a chimera twin as two separate people.
Case study for this revolves around a woman who required a kidney transplant, when her three sons were tested it was discovered that she could not be their biological mother of two of them, even though the medical records showed she had given birth to both of them .. further investigation found that one of her ovaries was genetically different from the rest of her body, it was what remained of her twin sister . so in fact on a genetic level (DNA) she was her two "sons" aunt, therefore the mere act of sexual intercourse does not automatically mean that either the woman or the man are the biological parents.

If you are satisfied why do you bother trying to defend, perhaps it is because you are not so convinced after all?

 

Another load of crap. Have you ever seen a court award prenatal care compensation to a pregnant woman?

 

You have not presented any science or commentary from scientists so how would you know.

The religious right does not listen to science ? LOL

The Bush admin spent a good deal of time and effort trying to silence scientists for stating facts they disagreed with.

You have yet to present any conclusions from scientists or refute the conclusions from the Biologist that I presented.

 

This is just humorous thinking. I can't help but chuckle.

The term "biological father" refers to genetics. That a human provided genetic material involved in the creation of all human cells, does not make all human cells living humans.