Against abortion and against person-hood?

[quip]

only to those who can make their point clearly and succinctly

Your point? lain:

 

[quip]

Delmar said he did not want any pro-choice respondents.

Good, then read my discourse with TH and make a relevant comment.

 

[Ktoyou]

Good, then read my discourse with TH and make a relevant comment.

Now now, TH did not start the thread, and did not set the rules, behave yourself.

 

[Town Heretic]

In other words, your answer is: "No quip your take was not a mischaractarization but rather I'm insulted at the effort you expended fleshing out the kernel of my unyielding position on abortion in such an unflattering way."

Well, no, quip. I suppose I wasn't clear enough. I'll try Hemmingway then:

When you said my remarks to Pure were "without support" you mischaracterized.

They weren't.

Not remotely.

I'd spent a great deal of time setting the table on my argument, illustrating it and answering, with particularity, the various non-responsive points related to that argument by Pure.

When you cherry pick a post where I'm actually answering yet another claim, setting out the nature of my objection to it and instead push out two quick valuations at the end before leveling the charge you mislead anyone who hasn't read the larger argument or the post you truncate.

That's mischaracterizing me. A bit like my old, "And Judas went out and hanged himself...go thou and do likewise". The words are all there, but the impression left by the selection is misleading.

That wasn't so hard...was it?

Do you still beat your chest? I mean wife, of course.

 

[Crucible]

At conception, what we have is a human being. The unjustified killing of a human being is murder.

Says neo-conservatives.

Look up the meaning of the "genetic fallacy." This is a classic example.

I looked it up, and it's you all that are guilty of the fallacy- except instead of it being based on actual sources or history, it's based on an ERRANT interpretation of it at that :rotfl:

Even if this were true — it's not in either case — you're not providing anything of substance to the argument against personhood.

I've provided ample argumentation. Biblical support showing that fetuses were as property, that it's better for a miscarriage than strife, that everyone fundamentally lies to themselves in that they treat mass murder as more than mass abortion, and so on.

I have made my point and proved you wrong- and just as what you all predictably do, you deny that this occurred, or lie about it, and continue on repeating yourselves.
Textbook denialist absurdity.

 

[quip]

Well, no, quip. I suppose I wasn't clear enough. I'll try Hemmingway then:

When you said my remarks to Pure were "without support" you mischaracterized.

They weren't.

Not remotely.

That's precisely what they are not.

Here are the quotes in question (from post #265 p. 18):

Px: "The problem is that our rationale is not based on our knowledge, but on emotionally sponsored opinion:"

".....And these views are simply not compatible. (Nor, according to logic and experience, are they achievable.) So compromise is going to have to be the order of the day."

Your response: "Flawed premise to flawed conclusion. No. Supra." and later the classic: "Horsefeathers."

Though you never set out to demonstrate the specifics of such asserted flaws..only to insinuate that your rigid rationale against abortion is beyond reason's reproach. This has never been established nor has your hand-waving denial concerning it's emotive impulse... as previously noted by Px.

 

[PureX]

I'd spent a great deal of time setting the table on my argument, illustrating it and answering, with particularity, the various non-responsive points related to that argument by Pure.

Dude, your argument wasn't that complex. It was as follows:

1. Our "social compact" allows that human beings have a right to exist.

2. We do not know when, exactly, a human being comes to "exist".

3. Therefor, we should presume the human being exists from the earliest possible point (i.e., conception).

Thus, your "argument " is simply an opinion dressed up as an argument: the opinion that we must presume that human beings come into existence upon conception. And those many arduous posts you claim were setting the table with your extensively reasoned argument were mostly just a verbose smoke-screen intended to make your opinion look like some sort of unassailable logic. And to counter my contrary observations by any and every means at hand.

 

[genuineoriginal]

And this one is perhaps the most damning to the notion that fetuses are of the same inalienable rights and acknowledgment of those born:

Exodus 21:22-23
"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life"


Right here is inevitably the woman's life being more important than the fetus, and the fetus itself being treated almost as property.

You have misread the verse you quoted.

Here it is in context:

Exodus 21:22-25 NASB 22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that [a]she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay [c]as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, [d]bruise for bruise.​

If neither the child nor the woman is harmed by the child being born early, then only a fine would need to be paid.
If either the child or the woman is harmed by the premature birth or miscarriage, then the penalty is life for life, etc.

 

[Crucible]

You have misread the verse you quoted.

Here it is in context:

Exodus 21:22-25 NASB 22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that [a]she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay [c]as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, [d]bruise for bruise.​

If neither the child nor the woman is harmed by the child being born early, then only a fine would need to be paid.
If either the child or the woman is harmed by the premature birth or miscarriage, then the penalty is life for life, etc.

No, you're interpretation is wrong. It is one of many elementary things which led to people thinking it's murder in the first place. Life for life is being spoken of the woman, and a fine for fetal injury.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No, you're interpretation is wrong. It is one of many elementary things which led to people thinking it's murder in the first place. Life for life is being spoken of the woman, and a fine for fetal injury.

You are delusional.

In the culture of the time this was written in, a male child was worth a lot more than a wife.
Assuming that the child that dies is a male child, an heir, then the loss of an heir is not something that can be avenged through the payment of a few shekels.

No, the life for a life applies to either the death of the child or the woman.

 

[ok doser]

Your point? lain:

... needs no further elaboration

 

[Crucible]

You are delusional.

You are delusional for thinking that people in those times would kill an able man for the harm of a fetus. That's what you all just don't get, and never will.

It is shown that with fetal harm comes a fine, and with harm to the woman comes eye for eye. Eye for eye doesn't include money, it is EYE FOR EYE.

You all simply lie, and continue to lie. That's all there is to it- just false witnessing; creating your own gospel the same as so many conservatives do today with many other things, especially politically and patriotically.

 

[Town Heretic]

That's precisely what they are not.

Here are the quotes in question (from post #265 p. 18):

Px: "The problem is that our rationale is not based on our knowledge, but on emotionally sponsored opinion:"

".....And these views are simply not compatible. (Nor, according to logic and experience, are they achievable.) So compromise is going to have to be the order of the day."

Your response: "Flawed premise to flawed conclusion. No. Supra." and later the classic: "Horsefeathers."

I noted your curios cherry picking prior. I noted that within that same post prior I had addressed a couple of points in particular. At the juncture where you decided to weigh and judge the argument I was simply waving off things repeatedly addressed and offered as nothing more or less than declarative presumptions.

Though you never set out to demonstrate the specifics of such asserted flaws.

Again, there's a larger, longer argument in play. It behooves anyone who feels compelled to judge it to actually be familiar with its parts first. Unless they're aspirations include the White House.

.only to insinuate that your rigid rationale against abortion is beyond reason's reproach.

Another bias laden approach to characterization. Rather, an argument that, if true, is rigid in the sense that a law denying you the right to own your neighbor is rigid. And the argument remains open to approach, examination of particulars and rebuttal, which is as fair as a thing can be.

This has never been established nor has your hand-waving denial concerning it's emotive impulse... as previously noted by Px.

Supra.

 

[Town Heretic]

Dude, your argument wasn't that complex.

I've never held that it was, dude. In fact, I've said the opposite.

It was as follows:

1. Our "social compact" allows that human beings have a right to exist.

And yet you can't even advance the first point of it correctly.

Rather, our compact believes that human right exists independent of the state and that the state serves to advance and protect the right, not originate or allow it. Law is an obligation to right and a balancing between individuals possessing it.

2. We do not know when, exactly, a human being comes to "exist".

There's no self-apparent, objective means by which we can invest or divest right, absent an act on the part of the one possessing it (in fact or potential) to abrogate it in another.

3. Therefor, we should presume the human being exists from the earliest possible point (i.e., conception).

No. Therefore we must protect the potential or risk abrogating a right with no justification for doing so, working an injustice and offense against the foundation of our own law and understanding. My argument doesn't presume to answer the question of vestment at all.

So, simple as it is you had almost none of it correctly situated in your mind.

Thus, your "argument " is simply an opinion dressed up as an argument:

No, supra. Moreover, the peculiar notion you appear to have that an opinion is contrary to reason or that having one inherently eliminates the foundation for it is an irrational and logically unsupportable position.

The opinion that we must presume that human beings come into existence upon conception.

Which was never the presumption of my argument.

And those many arduous posts you claim were setting the table with your extensively reasoned argument

None of which you read closely enough, apparently. Arduous? I thought you said simple. And I certainly never laid claim to that description.

were mostly just a verbose smoke-screen

Nothing of the demonstrable sort.

intended to make your opinion look like some sort of unassailable logic.

It's a logical argument. Assail away.

And to counter my contrary observations by any and every means at hand.

Only the one has been required, reason.

 

[ok doser]

I noted your curios cherry picking ...

he can keep them in one of these!

View attachment 23840

 

[quip]

[/I]I noted your curios cherry picking prior. I noted that within that same post prior I had addressed a couple of points in particular. At the juncture where you decided to weigh and judge the argument I was simply waving off things repeatedly addressed and offered as nothing more or less than declarative presumptions.

My reference to your quote is and currently stands as a direct challenge to your statement. You didn't simply "wave-off" Px's objection you explicitly dismissed his argument's premise and subsequent conclusion...without supporting the assertion.

A challenge still unmet, by the way.

Again, there's a larger, longer argument in play. It behooves anyone who feels compelled to judge it to actually be familiar with its parts first. Unless they're aspirations include the White House.

I'm more than familiar with your argument to secure a fundamental right-to-life for the unborn..we've had many a discourse on the subject. This is mere deflection through bluster.

Another bias laden approach to characterization. Rather, an argument that, if true, is rigid in the sense that a law denying you the right to own your neighbor is rigid.

I'm open to the charge of bias...one generated by your, likewise biased, ridged ideology; all in the spirit of compromise. If only you've the intellectual integrity to admit the same human propensity...else, your brand of objection is simply reduced to the mere art of swagger.

 

[Town Heretic]

My reference to your quote is and currently stands as a direct challenge to your statement.

You've referenced a couple, while avoiding the protracted, substantive rebuttal that proceeded in posts preceding the one in question, along with a number of points raised within the post you pick a couple of words from to lend an impression you're still trying to sell. And it's simply not a reflection of what happened.

You didn't simply "wave-off" Px's objection you explicitly dismissed his argument's premise and subsequent conclusion...without supporting the assertion.

You must have a different working definition of a wave-off.

The entire post follows in spoilers this summary.

I begin by addressing Pure's contention that everyone has a rationale.
His second line is to declare that everyone is driven by an emotionally sponsored opinion. I disagree, at least as it relates to my proffer.
He then misstates, again, my position about life being protected in any variation and at all cost. That's not actually true or my proffer, as I'd set out prior.
He concludes with a mirrored "protect autonomy at all costs" reference to the pro-choice crowd.
I note the error involved.
He sums that given his premises the only response is compromise.
That's the point where I note "flawed premise to flawed conclusion". And it's supported in my rebuttal of his summing my part of the argument. Or, my argument isn't doing and isn't rooted in his sketch of the pro-life argument, so his conclusion doesn't and can't follow it.
That's why I didn't merely write what you quoted, but also, and importantly, "Supra", referencing the distinctions and answers made prior. It wasn't some unsupported declaration.

His ending is a declaration that we've met our compromise as a compact. It is to that declaration that, argument unmet, I respond with, "Horsefeathers." Why? Because he hasn't met the argument, has summed me (then and after) errantly and essentially declared the matter settled.

Horsefeathers seemed a kind response.

Here's the entire and unedited post:

Spoiler

Everyone has their "rationale".

I'd agree a lot of people find reasons within a context. But reason is never an enemy of itself. Which means reason, logic, is a great way to check whether or not you're working backward from a belief or the other way around. I note that the problem is that no one is arguing for that autonomy once we understand the vestment of right.

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:

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

that human life must be protected in any variation and at all cost,

That wouldn't be my point, by way of. In fact, necessity will often require us to risk it. Rather, our right to be is fundamental, is the thing without which no other right has meaning. Else, see: my argument prior.

or, that individual autonomy must be protected in every variation and at all cost.

While autonomy isn't valued to the same degree and is necessarily limited between parties to the compact for a host of good reasons, the problem here is that you have to assume a want of vestment on the part of the unborn for this to become meaningful in the argument. Because once the unborn is seen as having an equal right then its autonomy is no less important and the argument from autonomy fails to find purchase.

And these views are simply not compatible. (Nor, according to logic and experience, are they achievable.) So compromise is going to have to be the order of the day.

Flawed premise to flawed conclusion. No. Supra.

And in fact, it IS the order of the day, by law. The 'unborn" are being protected, to a degree, while the woman's right to choose what happens inside her own body is also being protected, to a point.

It's not a compromise. It's an arbitrary line drawn along that chronological chain of being and should be rejected as such. It's political, not rational.

Like it or not (and many do not) we have reached our compromise.

Horsefeathers. [/quote]

I invite anyone to read it.

A challenge still unmet, by the way.

None of that is true.

I'm more than familiar with your argument to secure a fundamental right-to-life for the unborn..we've had many a discourse on the subject. This is mere deflection through bluster.

I was speaking to my argument with Pure, that you mischaracterize. Your concluding line is more of the same.

I'm open to the charge of bias...one generated by your, likewise biased, ridged ideology

I'm not offering my bias as the challenge. I've offered reason.

; all in the spirit of compromise.

It's an argument, not an offer to split the difference in valuations.

If only you've the intellectual integrity to admit the same human propensity.

Intellectual integrity is proffered in the argument and the challenge, evidencing a willingness to enter into a meaningful exchange on the points and accept contest on the merit, not in substituting a compromised emotional response in lieu.

..else, your brand of objection is simply reduced to the mere art of swagger.

Rather, it remains an argument, reason, offered with an invitation and your response remains, as with Pure, almost entirely a series of bias driven mischaracterizations, errant assertions and mistaken assumptions.

Otherwise, I think this is going rather well. lain:

 

[Stripe]

Says neo-conservatives.

Nope. I'm not a conservative.

And I deal in facts. Feel free to expose your ignorance by denying one of the following:
At conception, there is a human being.
The unjustified killing of a human being is murder.

Which of those is wrong?

I looked it up, and it's you all that are guilty of the fallacy- except instead of it being based on actual sources or history, it's based on an ERRANT interpretation of it at that.

Now look up tu quoque. :up:

I've provided ample argumentation. Biblical support showing that fetuses were as property, that it's better for a miscarriage than strife, that everyone fundamentally lies to themselves in that they treat mass murder as more than mass abortion, and so on.

None of this would show the personhood argument false. What you need to do is deny one of the following:

At conception, there is a human being.
The unjustified killing of a human being is murder.

I have made my point and proved you wrong and just as what you predictably do, you deny that this occurred, or lie about it, and continue on repeating yourselves. Textbook denialist absurdity.

 

[ok doser]

...an economy of words serves just fine.

for example:

At conception, there is a human being.
The unjustified killing of a human being is murder.

:thumb:

 

[PureX]

Rather, our compact believes that human right exists independent of the state and that the state serves to advance and protect the right, not originate or allow it. Law is an obligation to right and a balancing between individuals possessing it.

More Town-based opinion, 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. An objection that I've previously noted, and that you've previously refused to acknowledge.

There's no self-apparent, objective means by which we can invest or divest right, absent an act on the part of the one possessing it (in fact or potential) to abrogate it in another.

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. And when I point out that this is exactly what we do NOT know to be so, nor agree to be so, and that he is therefor positing an 'argument from ignorance' (and opinion), he just gets snippy and claims I don't understand reason.

Therefore we must protect the potential or risk abrogating a right with no justification for doing so, working an injustice and offense against the foundation of our own law and understanding. My argument doesn't presume to answer the question of vestment at all.

… More blatant opinion dressed up as legalese. We can't abrogate a right that doesn't yet exist. And no one anywhere has proposed that we do so without justification. 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.

So, simple as it is you had almost none of it correctly situated in your mind.

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.

I don't even disagree with your opinion. 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.

It is your inability to acknowledge that your own opinion IS AN OPINION that I am objecting to, because it's through that willful ignorance that you justify wanting to force all the women of the Earth to comply with it.