Another Judge in yet another State rules abortion clinic law unconstitutional

[zinfamous]

It is truly sad that people think like you.

People who support abortion are a disgrace to humanity.

As for the opening post, by all means, allow the slaughter houses to stay open.

Just has the Romans practiced infanticide and we are appalled by it, future generations will look at us as barbarians.

save the cells! save the cells! OMG save the cells!

But, you know, every woman has a right to demand that a physician likely kill her and her full-term baby!

Right, TH?

 

[kage69]

Only laymen are appalled by the Romans and infanticide. Anyone else who's done some cursory reading on the subject will have learned that the practice spans pretty much all cultures and many religions.

I think the Koran is the only religious text that strictly forbids it too. How does that appall you?

 

[Paratus]

Your fertility clinic example is flawed, as decisions in the case of a fired are based more on time than anything else.

For example, if you had a to choose between embryos which are right at the front door of the clinic, and perhaps a newborn at the rear of the clinic, I'd argue that time and risk to your own person would influence your decision more than anything else. If both were at the front door, you get both. If both were in the rear, you'd not go in at all.

None of that would stop a fire fighter, though.

Here's a different thought experiment that also gets at the heart of the difference between a fetus and a child.

Let's suppose an infertile childless couple who desperately wants a child goes to the only orphanage to adopt. After filling out the paperwork a man brings them a loaded revolver. The revolver is randomly loaded, half with dummies, half with live shells.

The man explains that to complete the adoption process they will bring the couple a random child. The couple will then put the gun up to its head and pull the trigger. They may take home the first child that lives through the process. If they choose not to adopt then no death will occur.

Would it be moral or ethical to complete this adoption process? Why or why not?

Now let's compare that scenario to this one.

A fertile couple desperately wants a child. They know due to thier medical circumstances they only have a 50/50 chance of fertilized egg making it all the way through to birth.

Would it be moral or ethical to proceed with conception? Why or why not?

If your answers differ between the two cases please explain.

 

[nehalem256]

Here's a different thought experiment that also gets at the heart of the difference between a fetus and a child.

Let's suppose an infertile childless couple who desperately wants a child goes to the only orphanage to adopt. After filling out the paperwork a man brings them a loaded revolver. The revolver is randomly loaded, half with dummies, half with live shells.

The man explains that to complete the adoption process they will bring the couple a random child. The couple will then put the gun up to its head and pull the trigger. They may take home the first child that lives through the process. If they choose not to adopt then no death will occur.

Would it be moral or ethical to complete this adoption process? Why or why not?

Now let's compare that scenario to this one.

A fertile couple desperately wants a child. They know due to thier medical circumstances they only have a 50/50 chance of fertilized egg making it all the way through to birth.

Would it be moral or ethical to proceed with conception? Why or why not?

If your answers differ between the two cases please explain.

So you are literally arguing that since people die of natural causes that murder is acceptable... D:

 

[Paratus]

So you are literally arguing that since people die of natural causes that murder is acceptable... D:

Reading comprehension again I see.

So your argument is that 50% of children die of natural causes?

 

[Retro Rob]

Here's a different thought experiment that also gets at the heart of the difference between a fetus and a child.

I don't recall saying a fetus is a child to begin with. I argue that both are alive, which is true, so your strawman is summarily dismissed.

Let's suppose an infertile childless couple who desperately wants a child goes to the only orphanage to adopt. After filling out the paperwork a man brings them a loaded revolver. The revolver is randomly loaded, half with dummies, half with live shells.

The man explains that to complete the adoption process they will bring the couple a random child. The couple will then put the gun up to its head and pull the trigger. They may take home the first child that lives through the process. If they choose not to adopt then no death will occur.

Would it be moral or ethical to complete this adoption process? Why or why not?

Now let's compare that scenario to this one.

A fertile couple desperately wants a child. They know due to thier medical circumstances they only have a 50/50 chance of fertilized egg making it all the way through to birth.

Would it be moral or ethical to proceed with conception? Why or why not?

If your answers differ between the two cases please explain.

Like was mentioned earlier, theoretical examples are useful to a degree, and that degree is met when you reach the point of absurdity by arbitrarily eliminating all other possible variables to reach a desired conclusion.

The funny thing is, you can include all the variables you want, so why can't I do the same?

 

[Paratus]

I don't recall saying a fetus is a child to begin with. I argue that both are alive, which is true, so your strawman is summarily dismissed.



Like was mentioned earlier, theoretical examples are useful to a degree, and that degree is met when you reach the point of absurdity by arbitrarily eliminating all other possible variables to reach a desired conclusion.

The funny thing is, you can include all the variables you want, so why can't I do the same?

So you'll avoid answering the question.

Guess that answers mine.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm adding variables, and your eliminating them. Think about; you're doing the exact same thing I am.

You're still committing a sharpshooter fallacy.

No. A hundred times no.

I don't know how to explain this simple concept to you any more clearly. Adding more variables is A BAD THING.

You mention something being closer to the door maybe changing your preference. It might, but now we've screwed things up because we are now talking about baby vs embryo preference AND proximity preference. Basic experimental design says that's a big no-no.

I keep waiting for you to provide an example that gets at the valuation question more clearly and you can't do it. I get the feeling you're just trying to find a way to ignore inconvenient information.

 

[Retro Rob]

No. A hundred times no.

Yes, a hundred times, yes.

Basic experimental design says that's a big no-no.

It's not really an experiment to get an accurate value judgment. Folks will chose the live baby for the simple fact that your experiment make it almost brainless to do so.

I would save the live baby, not because I inherently assign it more value, but because its a logical choice given the circumstances -- if my safety is guaranteed, then I'd simply go back and get the embryos afterwards. If my safety is compromised, I'd do what puts me at less risk. You cannot avoid this.

I think that in order to accurately gauge the value we'd assign an embryo v baby, you need to put someone in an unpredictable situation with random variables, like in this thing we call "real life".

I think you'd agree that we place more value of whichever puts us at less risk.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, a hundred times, yes.

It's not really an experiment to get an accurate value judgment. Folks will chose the live baby for the simple fact that your experiment make it almost brainless to do so.

Why?

I would save the live baby, not because I inherently assign it more value, but because its a logical choice given the circumstances -- if my safety is guaranteed, then I'd simply go back and get the embryos afterwards. If my safety is compromised, I'd do what puts me at less risk. You cannot avoid this.

Of course you can. As I already mentioned before the experiment presupposed an equal risk to you from both. If you need additional clarity you can assume that both you and your cargo will certainly survive the first trip. If you go back for a second trip you will both certainly die.

Again, you are attempting to add in additional considerations, which is the exact opposite thing you should be doing. Your argument is a research design 101 failing paper.

I think that in order to accurately gauge the value we'd assign an embryo v baby, you need to put someone in an unpredictable situation with random variables, like in this thing we call "real life".

This would actually do *literally the exact opposite* of what we are trying to accomplish. The purpose of a controlled experiment is to eliminate unpredictable and random variation so that you can examine the thing you're trying to look at. You want to look ONLY at the relative value between two subjects here. Anything that clouds or detracts from that should be eliminated.

I know you can understand this if you try.

When you see scientists conduct experiments in a lab do you see them deliberately trying to add in extraneous and random variables to "make things more like real life"?

I think you'd agree that we place more value of whichever puts us at less risk.

That has literally nothing to do with this. You keep trying to insert such causes but you're actually decreasing understanding.

 

[Retro Rob]

Of course you can. As I already mentioned before the experiment presupposed an equal risk to you from both. If you need additional clarity you can assume that both you and your cargo will certainly survive the first trip. If you go back for a second trip you will both certainly die.

Again, you are attempting to add in additional considerations, which is the exact opposite thing you should be doing. Your argument is a research design 101 failing paper.

I think you need to remove the "fire" variable, and just put us in a room where both are going to die if I don't feed either one.

Then, the live baby will be valued more. Adding "clinic fire" automatically adds personal risk. That's why I say you cannot avoid that.

You're essentially asking me to ignore personal risk though the situation involves it.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you need to remove the "fire" variable, and just put us in a room where both are going to die if I don't feed either one.

Then, the live baby will be valued more. Adding "clinic fire" automatically adds personal risk. That's why I say you cannot avoid that.

You're essentially asking me to ignore personal risk though the situation involves it.

Great. So now you are faced with the same choice. Starve a baby to death or let a million embryos die. We all know that just about everyone would choose the baby.

 

[Retro Rob]

Great. So now you are faced with the same choice. Starve a baby to death or let a million embryos die. We all know that just about everyone would choose the baby.

Of course, after I amended your biased and heavily flawed experiment. You cannot put me a real life theoretical, while expecting me to ignore "real-life".

You may as well put a gun to my head and tell me that I can chose either or, but if I choose the embryo, you'd blow my brains out.

 

[Paratus]

I think you need to remove the "fire" variable, and just put us in a room where both are going to die if I don't feed either one.

Then, the live baby will be valued more. Adding "clinic fire" automatically adds personal risk. That's why I say you cannot avoid that.

You're essentially asking me to ignore personal risk though the situation involves it.

I was honestly trying to give you a simple hypothetical.


I gave you a situation with no personal risk, that should clearly define your views on responsibility and the difference or lack there of for you between a fetus and a child. Yet you won't give us your views.

Do you not have conviction in your views?

 

[fskimospy]

Of course, after I amended your biased and heavily flawed experiment. You cannot put me a real life theoretical, while expecting me to ignore "real-life".

You may as well put a gun to my head and tell me that I can chose either or, but if I choose the embryo, you'd blow my brains out.

You did nothing of the sort, I was trying to let you save face. It is abundantly clear that sadly, you don't even seem to understand what you're doing wrong here.

The funny thing is that after "correcting" my "biased and heavily flawed" experiment it led to an identical conclusion. That should tell you something about your "correction".

 

[nehalem256]

Reading comprehension again I see.

So your argument is that 50% of children die of natural causes?

On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

 

[nehalem256]

Great. So now you are faced with the same choice. Starve a baby to death or let a million embryos die. We all know that just about everyone would choose the baby.

Is it a foreign baby? Because as I posted almost 50% of people would choose to save their pet dog over a foreigner.

 

[Retro Rob]

You did nothing of the sort, I was trying to let you save face. It is abundantly clear that sadly, you don't even seem to understand what you're doing wrong here.

The funny thing is that after "correcting" my "biased and heavily flawed" experiment it led to an identical conclusion. That should tell you something about your "correction".

Lol...situation dictates value. If there is no risk to me, I choose the baby. If there is risk to me, I may leave both. If the baby is in the back of the clinic and the embryo is right at the front, I'm going to choose which ever poses less risk to my personal safety.

 

[Paratus]

On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

I'm beginning to see the problem here. Not only do pro-lifers not know the difference between a fetus and a child, but also between a child and an adult. (And in your case an adult and a toaster)

So no on a long enough timeline children don't die, because they aren't children anymore. They are adults.

 

[fskimospy]

Lol...situation dictates value. If there is no risk to me, I choose the baby. If there is risk to me, I may leave both. If the baby is in the back of the clinic and the embryo is right at the front, I'm going to choose which ever poses less risk to my personal safety.

This has already been explained to you. Please stop digging a deeper hole.

Amazing that my "biased and heavily flawed" experiment led to the exact same conclusion as the one you came up with yourself. What does that tell you?

 

[Retro Rob]

This has already been explained to you. Please stop digging a deeper hole.

Amazing that my "biased and heavily flawed" experiment led to the exact same conclusion as the one you came up with yourself. What does that tell you?

It tells me you never understood my position -- I never said an embryo is the same thing has a child. What I *did* say is they're both alive, and without embryos, you can't have kids.

There is some form of circular reasoning in the idea that embryos arent important as children, yet, you can't have children without embryos.

 

[surfsatwerk]

I'm beginning to see the problem here. Not only do pro-lifers not know the difference between a fetus and a child, but also between a child and an adult. (And in your case an adult and a toaster)

So no on a long enough timeline children don't die, because they aren't children anymore. They are adults.

Don't forget he thinks giving birth is equivalent to taking a dump.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm beginning to see the problem here. Not only do pro-lifers not know the difference between a fetus and a child, but also between a child and an adult. (And in your case an adult and a toaster)

So no on a long enough timeline children don't die, because they aren't children anymore. They are adults.

So are you arguing adults aren't people or that children aren't people?

Or are you just engaging in silly word games?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Because, by introducing real life variables, you cannot predict the result you want.

I believe value judgments are relative to the situation. If the fire played out exactly as you say, sure I would grab the baby first, in a perfect world.

However, if my own skin would be in mortal danger, I'd likely not grab either.

See how that works?

Then you fail at being a real Christian. :thumbsdown:

"And Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God. 23 Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received[a] it, and it will be yours. 25 And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”

And rationalize all you like but your behavior in these forums always calls to mind the following passage -

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."

The way you engage in petty behavior here, all under the pretense of being a defender of the faith, makes you that hypocrite IMO. But I forgive you for it. ()

 

[Retro Rob]

Then you fail at being a real Christian. :thumbsdown:

"And Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God. 23 Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received[a] it, and it will be yours. 25 And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”

Please, make the connection for me. I cannot quite see how that swath of text addresses the part of my post you bolded.

And rationalize all you like but your behavior in these forums always calls to mind the following passage -

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."

The way you engage in petty behavior here, all under the pretense of being a defender of the faith, makes you that hypocrite IMO. But I forgive you for it. ()