I’ll offer my own look at the data in the polls in a separate post but I just wanted to point out that polls and facts are not the same thing. Polls can be considered as evidence, but the data is interpreted. I’ll be glad to explain why I believe your logic is doing it’s “not all that logical” thing with your own sources. Stay tuned.
Then you’re very special and we have a nice room ready for you.
Yes, the burden of proof is on you because there is no common understanding between us that a tree normally matures into a human being.
We know that fetuses normally become babies. We know there’s no fairly standing at the vagina ready to dust the fetus with human dust (ok, huge assumption). Therefore it’s not reasonable to pretend that the T-1 fetus is significantly different.
A brain dead person can be removed from his ventilator. Are brain dead people human?
Follow up question: Is a baby with no brain yet effectively brain dead?
Become human. That’s the difference. Just as an acorn isn’t an oak, a fetus isn’t a human.
We make judgement calls about the likelihood that a person on life support will recover from the need for support. Sometimes we’re wrong even with a lot of evidence suggesting they won’t recover.
With regard to the baby with no brain, it depends on just how much of the brain is missing. They may never have cognitive function, but they might have sensory capability.
So there is a fairy there waiting to dust the baby as it emerges.
I meant to say that the babies brain hadn’t developed yet. Before the fetus has a brain that can possibly develop thought or intellect.
I have to say, I generally can’t stand you. But that is a fucking fantastic way to state that.
I’ve said the same thing but it took a minute of rambling to get my point across. I will be stealing this. Domo.
No, you don’t have to say that. But yes, it is.
The point is, you are assuming that pregnancies are always intended and purposefully entered into, but they are not. Women don’t generally get pregnant for the sake of aborting the pregnancy. In many cases, they took action to avoid the pregnancy, but got it anyway. They have abortions because they did not choose pregnancy.
I’d much rather you answer my question first, since I asked it first.
Because “more important than gay marriage” doesn’t mean “the most important issue”.
As it relates to them not allowing abortion laws be set as society wants? Yes.
Newsflash: Always according to the will of the individual engaging in the action isn’t compromising in the slightest, because that just means “legal whenever the woman the wants it”-- a position a minority of Americans hold. A true compromise seeks the middle ground or, at the very least, seeks to please the greatest amount of people. The above ain’t it by a long shot, which I’m sure you know.
Anyway, I’m still waiting for these “mystical” sources that prove my assertions wrong.
No matter how many times you say this, it’s still factually incorrect. Fetus denotes a stage of development. Human a species. Sixth grade biology-- learn it.
Yep, it’s the magical “hey, this being isn’t using someone else’s lifeblood for sustenance anymore” fairy.
That just reminded me of a horribly sad case…
A friend’s niece gave birth to a girl who had just a bit of brain stem, if I am recalling it correctly, just enough to keep her alive for a year and a half, but she could not feel any sensation at all. You could have burned her with a hot poker and there would have been no reaction. You could look into her face and there was just…nothing there. Nobody home. It was more than awkward; it’s not as if you could coo and gush all over the baby, who was cute but totally unaware of her surroundings. My friend said it raised some very fundamental questions about what it means to be a human being. This girl existed, but what was she beyond that?
I’m a little worried about you. I thought for a while you were just stubborn or playing a game. Then you said you were serious. You seem to be having trouble following a discussion and you’re jumping all over the place and not making sense. That not just bad logic, it’s ,…something else.
Seriously try to follow this. Here’s how the conversation went
**You **said
To which** Bryan** replied
And I agreed
Obviously I was making a general comment and observation about people’s relationship to the law. One that you later agreed with when you said.
What I WASN’T doing was making a personal comment about how much I value people’s {the publics} opinion’s. That was something you pulled out of your ass. Even after I explained it you continued to argue against something I never said and accuse me of bullshit? That’s wacky. On top of that, the whole suggestion that if I really valued people’s opinions I’d agree with what the the majority wants, is bizarre and nothing resembling logic. If you don’t see that I have to wonder what the hell is wrong with your thought process.
Actually people don’t usually respond to a later post with an earlier post. You got your numbers mixed up but I found the right one.
Holy shit! If you are seriously suggesting that I avoided responding because I didn’t want to deal with your post you take yourself and the SDMB waaaayyyy to seriously. I have shit to do and respond when I feel like it and have time. I just don’t care enough to be intimidated by another poster. I certainly didn’t ignore one that wasn’t even directed at me.
I know it must make you feel good to believe you have these amazing arguments that pro choicers are all worried about and afraid of, but here again, you made that shit up in your head.
Here’s your non logic again and you calling bullshit on an argument I never made. You don’t have to agree with people’s opinions to consider them, you dolt. Tell you what, you cut the bullshit first and your posts will be a whole lot shorter.
No, I don’t assume that. Whenever human beings are involved there will always be exceptions to any rule you decide upon.
That’s why I support the idea of family planning so that a woman has every resource both to prevent unwanted pregnancy and to detect it as early as possible.
Yes, and if in fact it were a parasite I’d be all for terminating it with prejudice at any time.
Hypothetical: I make the “it’s a developing human” argument and you make the “lifeblood” argument in a mainsteam public venue and which do you think would be more persuasive?
Depends entirely on the venue. Because neither argument is persuasive on a rational level, because neither argument has a rational basis.
What is it that you think you’re trying to prove?
Uh-huh. Here. Let’s follow how the conversation really went and see who’s being “illogical” and “jumping all over the place”, shall we?
[QUOTE=You]
I echo Bryan’s observations on this. Ultimately people’s personal opinions do matter, since our law is shaped, enforced and changed by people. The law and the execution of it is imperfect being influenced by people and all their foibles.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=Me]
Please, spare me this garbage. When it comes to abortion, you don’t accept that people’s personal opinions matter. I direct you to post #1,497, which was really directed towards you, which you effectively ignored. If people’s opinions matter, as you claim, then abortion is murder and should be limited to instances of rape, incest, fetal defects and the health of the mother. Glad to see you agree.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=You]
Your bag of semantic BS is like Santa’s bag of toys. Magically endless. We were talking about the law remember? People’s opinions matter because people influence the writing of, the interpretation of, and the enforcement of the law. Not only is it obvious , it’s something you’re about to acknowledge in this very post. Doesn’t contradicting yourself within a few sentences bother you?
[/quote]
[QUOTE=Me]
And yet again, I point out to you how untrue and a load of BS this is. If this were true, and if people’s opinions mattered, as you say, then you would have to agree that abortion is murder (since the majority of respondents in the U.S. view abortion to be murder, with the majority of people who believe abortion is murder to equate it to killing a born child) and that abortion should be limited to cases of rape, incest, maternal health and severe fetal defects (as those are the only cases in which abortion support is greater than 50%). If, as you want us to believe (scoffs), the opinions of the people matter, then why exactly aren’t you fighting to overturn Roe v. Wade and let the people, whose opinions you say matter, determine what abortion laws are?
[/quote]
There’s nothing “illogical” about it nor am I “jumping around”. Those are legitimate points you have absolutely no answer for without some large dose of hypocrisy.
Ummm, no. How can you say that people’s opinions matter because they “influence the writing of, the interpretation of, and the enforcement of the law”, when “the writing of, the interpretation of and the enforcement of the law” is not indicative of people’s opinions? I haven’t pulled anything out of my ass. I’m reading precisely what you’re typing out. Perhaps you should do the same?
Now who can’t read? No one said that. What I said was that if you really “valued” people’s opinions, that you’d agree that their opinions-- even if they’re contrary to your own-- should be allowed to shape the law. Of course, that’s an assertion you wholeheartedly disagree with, as you argue that abortion should be broadly legal even if the majority only want it legal in certain situations. It’s really not hard to understand. Well, maybe it is for you.
Wow, you found a typo? You got me. Really. You did.
This has nothing to do with you “having shit to do”, but rather willfully choosing not to defend those “points” you know are wrong or refuse to respond to points which prove you wrong. For example:
(1) In post #1,476 you said, and I quote, that “* can personally consider [the life of the unborn] to be equal to a newborn, but that’s not the law, not the view of many of your fellow citizens, and not the view held by most societies {including ours} in history.” In post #1,484, I asked if you would like to place a wager on the other assertions, sans the law thing because that’s just an observation of what is. Unsurprisingly enough, you disappeared, never choosing to take that bet. I wonder why?
(2) In post #1,535, I quoted an 1859 report by the AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion in response to your assertion that abortion wasn’t made illegal based upon some moral view that a zygote or embryo is a fetus. That point, and indeed my entire post, went completely ignored by you.
(3) In post #2,231, you said that my interpretation of the data in my own links was slanted and faulty and that I was selectively choosing which data to represent. In post #2,234, I asked for you to show me the data that says that Americans would allow abortions outside of the “hard” cases I’ve made reference to numerous times. Funnily enough, I’m still waiting for you to do so, though I doubt I’ll be getting that data any time soon.
Those are the three most egregious examples. It’s funny to me to hear you talk about “having shit to do”, as you seem to only have “shit to do” when you’re faced with having to acknowledge the fact that you’re hopeless wrong, that you don’t know what the hell you’re rambling on about or that you understand far less about public attitudes towards abortion than you claim to know. You know, I’ve figured you out. When the going gets tough, and someone asks you for proof of your assertions or provides proof which is contrary to your assertions, you run away.
Then why do you spend 90% of your time dodging any question I ask and the other 10% of the time claiming I’m wrong even though I provide evidence of my claims while you provide none?
I mean, look at Zeriel. (S)he apparently put me on his/her “block” list, and now has proceeded to start engaging in a complete straw man argument with another pro-choicer. Wtf is that? Though, in all fairness, I suppose it’s a hell of a lot easier than actually trying to argue against a pro-lifer. What with their logic and all.
And here is Cosmosdan trying to back off of his “people’s opinions matter because people influence the writing of, the interpretation of, and the enforcement of the law” (exact quote!) line. It’s funny how you’ve gone from that line to the above line. If, say, the majority of the populace believes that abortions should be limited to certain situations, are you going to say that they should be able to amend the law to prohibit abortions in all but those certain situations? That’s a rhetorical question, because EVERYONE HERE KNOWS THE ANSWER WITHOUT YOU HAVING TO RESPOND. Of course you’re not going to say that. You’re going to say “tough shit” or use some kind of “you can’t force your beliefs on others!” pseudo-intellectual cop-out. Yet, somehow, you’d like us to believe that people’s opinions matter while simultaneously discounting the majority of people’s opinions. Please. In essence, what you’re saying is that people’s opinions matter unless you don’t agree with them, at which point they don’t. Gee. Tell me something I didn’t know and haven’t been saying for the past 20’ish pages.
Perhaps you should come back when you learn to construct better arguments.
I dunno, gay marriage seemed like a highly important issue in 2004, to the point where the Republican strategy significantly relied on it, and you say abortion is more important than that…
Well, a groundswell of public desire could prompt a constitutional amendment, like the 18th, if the issue was that important to them.
And why would the courts behave as you describe? Spite?