Being pro-life is utterly untenable and stupid

[cybrsage]

Is an acorn an oak tree?

Is an infant an adult?

An acorn and a tree are two different stages in the developmental cycle of an oak.

 

[cybrsage]

Would you shut the fuck up already. 2200 posts in 2 months. Wtf is wrong with you?

YOU are the one who holds the monstrous view that a human should be executed if his father commits rape. You need to ask yourself what is wrong with you.

 

[cybrsage]

Seriously ~50 posts per day is sad.

What is sad is that there are so many screwed up people like who who need to be corrected so often that it takes that many posts to do it.

Seriously, you and your ilk are pretty messed up people.

 

[JSt0rm]

YOU are the one who holds the monstrous view that a human should be executed if his father commits rape. You need to ask yourself what is wrong with you.

Not only that but I think they should be aged just enough to be a meal for 1.

Remember,

Babies taste better!

 

[cybrsage]

Not only that but I think they should be aged just enough to be a meal for 1.

Remember,

Babies taste better!

They do, but only if you dip them in melted butter. Without the butter, they are pretty bland.

 

[jackstar7]

OMGWTF... you gotta BBQ, people!

 

[cybrsage]

OMGWTF... you gotta BBQ, people!

BBQ...had not thought about that. I used a grill, then the melted butter. I wonder if sweet and tangy BBQ sauce would do well...

 

[JSt0rm]

u crazy. Just render all that baby fat and the muscle what little there is would be very tender. I would guess the cheeks would be a prized part of the animal.

You could tan the skin into all kinds of nice items.

 

[davmat787]

this is going in circles. The cells die obviously. A fetus is analogous to clumps of hair.

Do mothers die in all of abortions? nope.

Why do you keep bringing up hair, what is it analogous to? Hair is made up of keratinized proteins BTW.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If we're debating abortion as it relates to tort law, then, you're correct, we'd have to establish the duty owed, how it was breached, etc. However, we're speaking in the general vernacular of "negligence" to mean (from M-W) "failing to exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances."

I prefer to use the most rigorous meanings of the key words in my arguments. It does not lend credence to YOUR arguments that you admit you have to play fast and loose with your terms in order for them to have any semblance of tenability.

Having unprotected sex versus protected sex is negligent in that it drastically increases the odds of pregnancy.

So what if it does? Who is put at risk of harm when having sex? Why should people "exercise (some arbitrary amount of) care" when having sex, as long as the sex is consensual between the two parties? How can it be negligent if nobody is put in harm's way as a consequence?

Should someone not desire that outcome, they would be negligent by not taking care to avoid it.

I do not desire to be in traffic collisions, but I am not negligent for driving on the public motorways. Would you say to me, "by driving on the highway, you are not taking care to avoid a traffic collision, so you are being negligent"?

What a silly argument.

In a single day, no. However, 85% of women who use no contraceptives throughout the course of a year while having sex will become pregnant.

Great, and if I let a million monkeys hammer randomly on typewriters, eventually they'll produce the works of Shakespeare. That doesn't make Othello a "highly probable" consequence of letting Bobo bang on the old word processor.

http://www.healthcenter.vt.edu/resources/shc-online-docs/information-sheets/contra-fail-rate.pdf

I would call that "high probability."

Yeah, and you also think that sex is negligent, so forgive me if I don't lend a lot of weight to your opinions.

I didn't ask if you'd be at fault. I asked if you'd be negligent (in the common sense of the word) to which you replied:

Negligence implies fault, genius!

Again, at what degree of probability could we consider your actions "negligent?"

AGAIN, probability is irrelevant. The breach of a duty defines negligence.

I think I'm talking about the responsibility to one's self, not to others. The fetus is not a person so one cannot be negligent to the fetus. But if person does not desire pregnancy yet knowingly engages in activities that present a high risk towards that outcomes, they're only hurting themselves and could only be considered negligent unto themselves.

Why do you think that is that any of your business?

It's the personal responsibility aspect that I'm driving at.

When the responsibility is to one's self, then they are free to make their own decisions, and you can just butt right the fuck out.

Was the "A" unprotected?

A was sex. We are talking about sex. You are now introducing a qualification which was not included as a distinction before. You are moving goalposts, and therefore being disingenuous.

Don't do that.

You contend that the female body is not designed through natural selection to bear children? I doubt you and I would be here if that were not the case.

I contend that the female body was not designed, period. I also contend that you are committing a mistake common among simpletons in confusing behavior with function, and function with purpose.

Literally speaking, yes. That fertilization can occur without sex.

However, in the context of our discussion, I was referring to the act of having unprotected sex leading to the consequence of pregnancy. I'm sure you'll agree a causality exists there.

I will stipulate that a correlation exists, similar to the correlation between traffic collisions and operating a motor vehicle on public motorways.

Poor analogy on my part since the only "duty" the woman owes would be to herself should she not desire to become pregnant.

Then how about you just worry about your own damned duties to yourself, and let other people be free to mind their own business, too.

"Subvert" would seemingly imply intent on the fetus' part, which I doubt you mean. The production of EPF is a product of evolution since it is difficult to spread our DNA if our offspring are destroyed by our immune systems.

The point is that were it not for certain behaviors of the zygote, the default behavior of the woman's body would be to repel it like any other pathogen.

I did not say what her body's purpose is, only what it is designed to do via evolution.

Design implies purpose.

One may say a car is designed to go fast, but the owner deems the purpose of the vehicle (it may be to look at, a daily commuter, etc.).

You're putting words into my mouth.

No, you simply do not understand the implications of the words you've chosen.

I agree. Every woman has the right to choose. I've never disputed that, only your terminology and position that a woman who doesn't want to become pregnant yet has unprotected sex cannot be called "negligent." Perhaps "irresponsible" would do better?

In the most rigorous sense of the word, no, nobody is negligent for having sex. Of course, it's a free country, and consequently you can call dogs ducks, planes boats, and sexually active women negligent if you want. Just don't be surprised when others point out how silly it is to do so.

What is clear here is that you take every opportunity to hurl thinly veiled insults my direction because I objected your terminology. I think we can have a civil discussion without them.

This isn't a discussion. This is an education. There are facts of which you are unaware, and I have presented them. Now, it is up to you to come to terms with them. If you are unable to do so, do not be surprised to have your intelligence called into question. If you deliberately refuse to do so, do not be surprised to have your integrity called into question.

If you'd like to discuss things further I welcome it. If you'd like to continue to try to beat me over the head with your perceived mental superiority, I think we're finished speaking on this subject.

This is not about my mental superiority. It is about the facts. I'm not some wizard-genius that magically brought all of these things together. They are what they are because it is the reality of the world we live in.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Is an infant an adult?

Are you pro-having-a-penis-stuck-in-your-butt or do you think homosexuality should be illegal?

An acorn and a tree are two different stages in the developmental cycle of an oak.

But an acorn is not an oak tree, and a fetus is not a person.

 

[micrometers]

Why do you keep bringing up hair, what is it analogous to? Hair is made up of keratinized proteins BTW.

yeah. Fine. Let's say that there's a law against amputations. Since human cells die when someone cuts off a gangere'd foot.

 

[micrometers]

Are you pro-having-a-penis-stuck-in-your-butt or do you think homosexuality should be illegal?


But an acorn is not an oak tree, and a fetus is not a person.

Yes. We pass laws to protect old growth forests, but we don't care about tree nuts. THat is utilitarian.

Abortion is entirely theoretical, and is about potential lives. Since I cannot know any of the people I might have known if abortion were legal, well, it really doesn't matter then. Abortion restrictions OTOH will materially impact people that I know and see on a daily basis.

 

[child of wonder]

snip

I'm sorry we couldn't have a reasonable discussion about the topic at hand, but your insistence on being an asshole makes it impossible. Clearly this topic is something you're more than mildly passionate about but I won't be talked down to and insulted, especially over a simple dispute regarding terminology.

I'll weigh the things that you've said and think them over. Thanks for the needlessly heated talk.

 

[Atreus21]

But an acorn is not an oak tree, and a fetus is not a person.

I don't know why I'm even bothering, but oh well.

An acorn is to a tree as an unfertilized egg is to an adult.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm sorry we couldn't have a reasonable discussion about the topic at hand, but your insistence on being an asshole makes it impossible.

When you believe ridiculous things, you should expect ridicule.

Clearly this topic is something you're more than mildly passionate about but I won't be talked down to and insulted, especially over a simple dispute regarding terminology.

I don't respect anyone that himself has demonstrated no respect for facts.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yes. We pass laws to protect old growth forests, but we don't care about tree nuts. THat is utilitarian.

Abortion is entirely theoretical, and is about potential lives. Since I cannot know any of the people I might have known if abortion were legal, well, it really doesn't matter then. Abortion restrictions OTOH will materially impact people that I know and see on a daily basis.

For the record, you and I agree that abortion is a legitimate medical procedure that should remain legal, but that is about as far as our agreement extends.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't know why I'm even bothering, but oh well.

An acorn is to a tree as an unfertilized egg is to an adult.

Actually, that's false. An acorn is more akin to a zygote. It has been fertilized through pollination.

 

[child of wonder]

When you believe ridiculous things, you should expect ridicule.


I don't respect anyone that himself has demonstrated no respect for facts.

You're dead wrong. I value factual information higher than baseless opinions and speculation.

Unfortunately, the majority of your responses were evasive and you failed to truly address much of anything I said, choosing instead to mentally masturbate all over yourself.

I don't respect anyone who acts as a misanthropic egotist who would rather belittle and demean someone who wants an honest discussion on a topic rather than engage in intelligent discourse. I enter into every debate with an open mind and am eager to be proven wrong since I don't want to be incorrect. You, on the other hand, arrive with your mind made up ready to blast anyone who opposes your opinion (sorry, everything you say is "facts").

I'm going to re-read some of your points. You did make some good ones here and there and if I ignore your attitude and ad homs, maybe it will influence me to change my opinion.

My condolences to your family and friends. I pity them for having to deal with you.

 

[Atreus21]

Actually, that's false. An acorn is more akin to a zygote. It has been fertilized through pollination.

But it has to be in the ground, and get water and other nutrients.

 

[micrometers]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/30/justice/maryland-abortion-doctors-murder/

this is why I"m pro-choice. Two doctors have been charged with murder over an abortion. What an utter mess.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You're dead wrong. I value factual information higher than baseless opinions and speculation.

Clearly not. The evidence to the contrary is just up the page.

Unfortunately, the majority of your responses were evasive and you failed to truly address much of anything I said, choosing instead to mentally masturbate all over yourself.

Evasive? WTF did I evade? You can't be serious.

I don't respect anyone who acts as a misanthropic egotist who would rather belittle and demean someone who wants an honest discussion on a topic rather than engage in intelligent discourse.

Facts are not open to debate. They are simply the facts. You can check out any and all of my claims and find them to be factually true.

I enter into every debate with an open mind and am eager to be proven wrong since I don't want to be incorrect. You, on the other hand, arrive with your mind made up ready to blast anyone who opposes your opinion (sorry, everything you say is "facts").

I've debated this subject for years and years. I know the arguments, and I know the facts. Nothing I have said is false. When you can't or won't acknowledge them, your arguments will be met with the derision they deserve.

I'm going to re-read some of your points. You did make some good ones here and there and if I ignore your attitude and ad homs, maybe it will influence me to change my opinion.

My condolences to your family and friends. I pity them for having to deal with you.

Oh, boo hoo, poor you. How's about you just sack it up and deal with the facts like you should've from the beginning and this whole ordeal could've been avoided.

 

[micrometers]

But it has to be in the ground, and get water and other nutrients.

And no one cares, lol, about acorn preservation.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

But it has to be in the ground, and get water and other nutrients.

Not necessarily. You can grow them hydroponically.

 

[cybrsage]

But an acorn is not an oak tree, and a fetus is not a person.

An infant human is not an adult human either. You would never say that an infant human is not a human (at least I assume so).

You are correct in that a fetus is not a person. To be a person, you have to be born. That is the legal dividing line between no rights and human rights. That does not magically make the human fetus no longer human, though.

Thus, an oak acorn is an oak, it is simply not an oak TREE. Tree is a stage of oak development, which includes the acorn. Adult is a state of human development, which includes fetus. No where in there is an oak acorn not an oak nor is a human fetus not a human.