Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

You and I both know you are arguing in bad faith at this point, I laid it out very clearly over multiple posts and you are deliberately mischaracterizing a very simple logical flow of your own stances. everyone else can follow the flow of what I’m saying so it’s rather convenient.

If anything I hope you revisit your own stances on what I brought up and how it’s inconsistent to adhere to logical fallacies not only for yourself, but to a point that the collective view when taken, jeopardizes the health of mothers

 

Quite the contrary. I have addressed everything you have posted. It is you who is not engaging in good faith. That is why you cannot point out a single logical fallacy, and will not provide a single reason why my definition of life is wrong or provide your own definition of life. It's fine, no one can make you do it.

 

On my quick google search, I glanced that some big brained politician wanted to get ahead of the issue by denying abortions except in the cases of "rape, incest, or IVF"

That's a full set of logical contortions to unravel like a Russian Matroyshka doll. Does IVF really belong with the first two? If one is zealously adamant about morally upholding innocent life, then why does the condition of the mother or parents even matter...let God sort that mess out as planned.

All of it belies undertones of arbitrary control and political calculation to not sound too insane while dragging in folks who are individually reasonable but a mindless mass of emotion and defensiveness as a tribe.

 

....

I outlined it many times, other people picked up on it. Strangely you didn't. Despite multiple reiterations and breakdown to an outline and ABC format your OWN premises disproved you. That's the irony here man, your own stances and logic defeated your points. You are welcomed to re-read both mine and your responses and chiefly with the main assertion how you resorted BuT hUmAN BeHAvIORs GuYS (that's not usually winniing sign)

The gaslighting aint gonna work bro.

 

apparently the thesis word limit wasn't enough for @StupidMoniker , even though 1 or 2 of the weakest points(though strong when compared to a conception = life person) disprove everything he believes.

Like i said some people believe the world is flat, its fine.

 

If it is so obvious, why won't you just answer simple questions? What logical fallacy did I use? You reject my definition of life. What is the error in it? What is your superior definition?

 

I actually used the word logical fallacy a total of 6 times, directly after I stated such. How much do you expect me to break it down for you? Why did other people pick up on exactly what I was saying but you magically didn't?

This isn't even a we agree to disagree, you're flat out wrong lol. I'm not retyping anything, you can read LOGICAL FALLACY and scroll right before it. Good luck. The sad part is i retyped my points multiple times thinking we were engatging in a legit convo

 

There are many logical fallacies. Just saying LOGICAL FALLACY doesn't specify which you are saying, nor does it show one is being used. You have typed logical fallacy repeatedly, and I have repeatedly asked you to specify with no response. I even gave you a link to a list of fallacies so you wouldn't even have to be aware of all of them in advance, you can just look through the list and pick the one you think applies. You cannot do it, because I didn't make a fallacious argument. No one else chimed in with which fallacy I allegedly relied on either, they (and by they I mean @Amiga ) just nodded along with you as though you were professing some sage wisdom. I don't want you to retype anything. I want you, for the first time, to specify which fallacy you think I am relying on, to state clearly why you believe my definition of life to be wrong, and to provide an alternative definition of life that you think is superior. I don't expect you will do so.

 

The answer to your question is in my first post, don’t know if it’s an act or your unwillingness to you know..read is the issue here. I did so multiple times, playing stupid and asking me to do something I did repeatedly isn’t going to change your points. The funny thing is it was probably the most broken down and explicitly pointed to post I’ve made on here and I even pointed to where you can find it in my post. Maybe I’ll have to find character counts and link you to it apple map style.

again, you argued against basic scientific facts and resorted to jumping into tangential philosophical quandaries. Why? You can’t dispute scientific facts. The people that discuss such matters and publish don’t give a **** about any of that. Empirical evidence is all that matters and you somehow want to build strawmen and talk about the origin of the universe, meaning of life and Phil 101.

you can keep quoting me and acting dumb, but like I said it is broken down in every post I typed out. Resorting to such tactics only makes it clear for everyone that you were in fact fighting a losing battle which would be expected when someone is trying to argue that purine base here and there / simple nucleotides constitute a living being when reality and every piece of evidence points to the contrary. The skin cells I shed while typing this message let out a bunch of tears. Perhaps if they were dedifferentiated to stem cells , re differentiated, crossed over and switched a couple of bases around they could play the role of a 2 year old kid and charge me.

Playing dumb only works when it’s subtle btw.

 

Again, it’s not possible to convince people hell bent on arguing their position, and not the facts but I said so in my first post: you can argue many pro life points, but the second you try to convince people life begins at conception ….you’re standing in front of a tank muzzle and the shittiest of marksman will still annihilate you

it’s everywhere in the last couple of posts

charge women for aborting their zygote!

Allow IVFs to happen because you know… they’re trying to get pregnant and really really want kids and god loves that!!

 

We can go round and round on the argument but there will never be universal agreement on when life begins. This is where politics will end up deciding what is acceptable for the US. While those on the Pro-life have succeeded in electing legislatures and getting judges appointed who are sympathetic to that position in referendum after referendum they are losing and polling shows the Pro Choice side has more support.

 

Re fertility treatments, I foresee attempts to ban the winnowing of embryos in IVF, but not IVF itself. So, a woman having trouble conceiving can have zero children, or eight.

 

Well, here is your first post responding to me in this thread. Let's see if you point out a specific fallacy or give a definition of life:

Nope. You talk about molar pregnancies, you present your own slippery slope fallacy, you make a reductio ad absurdum argument, but no, you don't mention any actual logical fallacies I am relying on, nor do you give your own definition of life, nor do you say why my definition is wrong.

Will your skin cells continue developing and growing, becoming more complex, eventually growing into an adult, perhaps with the capacity for reproduction? Will a molar pregnancy? Will cancer? No. A zygote will, as it is the first step along the road to adulthood. It is the moment when the gametes from each parent combine to create a new human.

 

LIfe is the opposite of death.

in Humans Clinical death is the medical term for the absence of neurological function, cessation of blood circulation and breathing, the criteria necessary to sustain the lives of human beings..

Not without a host it won't.

 

No a zygote will not , it is prone to errors at the first stage of coding like anything else.

and yes, your skin cell can in the scenario I posted.

Thus far you have established that you consider a zygote a life. Your point.

viluntarily taking a human life is murder. You agree

By that same argument involuntarily taking that life, failure to take folic acid, partaking in alcohol is involuntary manslaughter and at the minimal even if you don’t believe that necessitates punitive action something like taking a vitamin or mandating physicals which would save more zygotes.

you go on to some philosophical quandary to get out of your own stances regarding human behavior when that’s not really possible the second you constitute a zygote as living. That and you should ve taking strong stance against IVF which results in the loss of a lot of these Embryos. You can’t take any of these logical stances because you yourself don’t believe life begins at conception , nobody does if they are a sane rational human being

People that don’t actually work in this sector feel that a couple of nucleotides crossing over means that constitutes life when it couldn’t be further from the truth. Viruses are non living and interchange DNA all the time. Taking that event in isolation. “It has the potential to be a human!!” Is stupid. That sounds like a fairy tale scenario but we interchange dna all the time. See how insulin is produced. So does my sperm if it somehow travels somewhere and meets a random egg (in a near impossible scenario I know), but that sperm also Carries the individuals blueprint and at the minimum can result in a copy of the individual themself

you can’t argue against it like I said. Dance around all you want

 

This is where you have introduced an error. Involuntarily taking a life is not necessarily involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter requires either criminal negligence (failure to meet the standard of the average reasonable person) or causation in conjunction with another criminal act (for example, driving while intoxicated). Simply failing to take every possible precaution and there being a resultant death is not involuntary manslaughter, which I have explained repeatedly in this thread and to which you have provided no counter argument. I have provided several examples. We do not ban cars, but allowing there to be traffic results in 10s of thousands of traffic fatalities.

I am not trying to get out of anything. I think it is sad that many zygotes fail to survive to birth and eventually adulthood. I would proscribe killing them. I oppose IVF as currently practiced (which I already stated) as to me the destruction of the unwanted embryos is no different than abortion.

Are viruses alive? 3 reasons why scientists say no (cosmosmagazine.com)
Do you see in this why the comparison of a virus to a zygote fails?

 

That's great for santorum and his daughter. But different situations, and Cox and her doctors should be the one's making the decision for Ms. Cox.

 

Probably. Leave things to chance rather than allowing humans to use genetic screening (once it's advanced enough) to select the 'best' human. Leave things to chance so that it follows the natural (or God) process more. Slow carving out might have some success since IVF is generally accepted (except for those who believe the embryo is life). But I still think that if you hold the view that the embryo is life, to be logically consistent, you have to render IVF practically useless.