Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

[Diogenes]

Roe v. Wade has been overturned today.
This subtopic specifically does not invite debate on the prohibition of abortion.

The question for debate is whether this sweeping decision allowing the States to outlaw abortion will lead to civil unrest and disrespect for the Court. My guess is, it will do both and will lead to women traveling from their homes in the South and much of the heartland of the United States to States that protect the 'right' for 50 years.

The 'abortion pill' will be banned in many States and the 'pro-choice' advocates will try to get the pill into those States where it will be a felony to possess it. I can envision armed militias at borders and around airports.
When the 18th Amendment prohibited Alcohol in 1919 it produced a new, illegal industry and related violence that lead to the passage of the 21st Amendment in 1933, repealing that Amendment.

[Clownboat]

Again, please open a biology book. Abortion is the killing of an innocent human life. We are talking about a human life. And I am glad you admit that it would be wrong to kill an innocent human life.

Call it the murder of a baby if you want and ignore that the value difference between an unwanted fetus and that of an actual child is different. This seems to be all you have.

What about the body of the unborn?

You are not paying attention it seems. The value of the unwanted unborn is not equal to the value of the born. So it is a tragedy still, but I will not pretend that it is an equal tragedy when compared to losing a child.

Cold or cancer... You're sick either way, so who cares which one you have? This sums up your argument and we all know which one we would prefer to have.

You are aware that under Roe, a woman could obtain an abortion up until the moment of birth, right? The unborn have bodies. Look at any ultrasound image, or the remains of any abortion. Those tiny little fingers and feet that get ground down in garbage disposals are body parts.

Again with emotional arguments and images as your argument. I am not pro abortion and wish that we had zero occuring.
To have a cold is to be sick.
To have cancer is to be sick.
They are not equal, same as what we abort compared to our actual children and your argument pretends that they are. For this reason it fails for me. The way I see it, you can either try to argue as to why the value is the same, why the value doesn't matter, or call me a person that loves when babies are murdered. Options 1 or 2 would be debate worthy.

I’m pretty sure people made the exact same argument regarding slavery. It didn’t make it right.

Feel free to present said argument if you think it is worthy to be included here.

You and I are discussing the value difference between something we abort and a 1 year old.

Correct. And like I said both are human beings and have the same value simply in being human beings.

To have a cold and to have cancer is to be sick. To discount where they differ is to not think logically.
Sick is sick, right? Of course not.

This is exactly what I said in my previous post, “Both a baby outside the womb and a baby inside the womb are human lives. They have the same value/worth/dignity intrinsic and inalienable to being human.”

Then your logic leads us to the conclusion that to be sick with cancer or sick with a cold is the same. They are not, therefore your comparison fails.

They don't have the same value.

They do.

Then a cold and cancer are the same for being sick in each case. Both scenarios are only the same if you ignore the differences. I cannot ignore the differences like you seem to be able to do.

If they did, you would choose saving the 5 blastocysts in a jar over the 1 year old child in the corner.

I never said I wouldn’t choose the embryos over the child.

I know and I pointed out your dodge. Why would you want to defeat yourself in debate afterall? The rest of us know which you would choose though and why.

I also pointed out that human nature does not necessarily have anything to do with what is right/good, or a determinant of value. A drug addict would probably choose to save some drugs. Given his addiction, it would be human nature for him to do so. Of course, we all know that just because a drug addict would save a bag of drugs from a burning building doesn’t mean the drugs have greater value than a human life.

It would not be human nature, it would be the drug addicts drug addiction that would affect the reasoning. Surely a mother struggling with the decision to keep or not keep a fetus is not the same as a drug dealer trying to get their next fix. Who knows, the way you talk about murdering babies, maybe you think abortions are like crack? Gotta get my next one!

If you feel you have a valid analogy to present with this drug dealer and the burning building, please present it. You can consider me the drug addict if it will help to make your point.

You cannot argue for being pro womens rights when you are arguing to restrict them.

I would say the same thing back to you.

You could, but that would be another silly argument. Obviously I am pro womens rights.

I do not think you are aware of all the ways legalized abortion restricts women.

What is painfully obvious is that you are not aware that to not allow women to make choices is to restrict their ability to make choices.

Again, the social research shows women regret their abortion, felt they were pressured into having one, and ultimately felt as if they had no choice.

And when they don't regret it, nor did they feel pressure to have one, should we just forget those women and remove their ability to decide for themselves? In other words, restrict their rights? I say no. How about you?

I will also remind you the majority of Pro-lifers are women.

Let's try some of your own 'logic' shall we and see how you receive it?
Most slave owners were pro slavery. Therefore........?????

Also, what part of ‘where one human life begins, another human life’s right’s ends’, don’t you get?

When one life is a cold and the other cancer. Both are a sickness, but they are not equal, just like how what women abort is not equal to an actualized human baby.
Do you get it?

You may care about the female who doesn’t want to be pregnant right now, but what about the female in the womb? Why restrict her right to life? She is the most vulnerable among us. She is being marginalized. Who will fight for her?

I submit that the would be mother is in the best position to determine these things. It seems as though you think you should be the one to make this determination and not the mother. I cannot support you.

Abortion is anti life and anti woman.

Just another empty emotional claim. Let's look at reality.
Abortion is the removal of an unwanted fetus and to allow women to make said choice to to give this right to women.

Your position is equivalent to the dead beat dad’s – “I didn’t plan this pregnancy. I didn’t want a baby. Financially what makes the most sense is to get an abortion.

Readers, do you feel that RightReason is even reading my posts? Clearly I see a value difference between an unwanted fetus and that of a wanted child. How my position reflects that of a dead beat dad is lost on me. No body likes a dead beat dad though, so perhaps the well is just being poisoned.

Having an abortion will make ‘the problem’ go away. If you choose to have this baby, you will get no help from me. You’ll be on your own. Don’t expect me to support you. I want no part of this. Choosing to have this baby would be irresponsible and you will simply end up being a burden to others”

Again, let's follow your line of thought:
Read what you just typed and then add: therefore, woman should not have the right to decide for themselves if they want to attempt to carry a fetus to term or not.

Pro Choice fail: “Well, I personally hate abortion and wish there were less abortions, but it is a necessary evil -- if we didn’t permit abortion, these women will end up being quite a drain on society. It’s not really about what she wants. She needs to consider the common good. Because I don’t really want to pay for her “mistake”. It takes a village is overrated honey, when it affects my pocket book. Women need to get in line with the program. Let’s hear it for being pro women!!! Yay women!”

There is a value difference between an unwanted fetus and that of a child.
Women are in the best position as to determine if THEY should attempt to carry a fetus to term.

Your emotional diatribe fails to address any of the actual points I have made. Straw man all you want and knock them down if you cannot debate what I actually say.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #71]

Readers, do you feel that RightReason is even reading my posts?

You continue to make comments like this and seem to be assuming anyone else reading these posts agrees with you. LOL! I love it when you continue to post things like, “Let’s let the reader decide.” I have absolutely no problem with that. It is my opinion the illogic of your position has been pointed out. I too encourage others to read our conversation. I think everything you have already said speaks for itself. Perhaps, we ought to leave it at that.

[Purple Knight]

Why? Like you said, if we recognize it for what it is – a human life, how can you say it has less value than a human outside of the womb, just because it isn’t yet out of the womb? That is suggesting the value of a human being is based on what he/she can do or “bring to the table” so to speak and not simply inherent in being a human being. It is precisely the kind of thinking that says grandpa is of less value than young strapping Johnny because he’s past his prime. It’s the same kind of mindset that says paraplegic Joe has less value than the football player Joe. That smarter people have greater value than someone with a lower IQ.

You act like we don't all tacitly do this. Do you really expect me to grab paraplegic Joe as a free agent to play on my football team or hire the mentally infirm to develop my app?

Now, I know what you're going to say: You're not talking about external value - you mean internal value. You mean some special spark that exists inside, independent of what the being containing it can or can't do.

So what are you going to say if I say that spark exists in a cactus?

[Diogenes]

[Replying to RightReason in post #70]
There is a central problem with your posts on this subject. You assume that when 23 chromosomes from the mother unite with 23 from the father, that at that instant a human being exists with all the rights and privileges of a fully formed, sentient adult homo sapiens. This is just your assumption. It is every bit as arbitrary as claiming no one is human until it emerges from the birth canal and takes its first breath.
[sigh]
[Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #22

Post by otseng » Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:29 pm
[Replying to RightReason in post #21]

Moderator Comment

Per the OP, "The question for debate is whether this sweeping decision allowing the States to outlaw abortion will lead to civil unrest and disrespect for the Court."

For debates on abortion, please create a separate thread.

Please review the Rules.


[The 'abortion debate' does not belong on this subtopic. I know it's hard to resist... for me as well....]

I understand the argument, that when the zygote is formed (a single cell) a unique blend of 46 (sometimes 45 or 47) chromosomes results (if not some grotesque birth defect). So what? According to you that single cell is the equivalent of a young mother of four. This is as arbitrary and absurd as the claim of the pregnant woman that because she was carrying a fetus, she should be able to use the carpool lane. https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/11/us/pregn ... index.html

This claim, that the zygote, even a week before it implants in the uterus, when it has no brain, no heart, no organs and is the biological equivalent of an amoeba (no offense to Difflugia ). There is no Biblical or scientific reference to a zygote being fully human, yet you assume it is fully human. Your failure to even address this issue may be an example of what Clownboat refers to when he doubts you even read arguments counter to your own.

For what little it may be worth, the Bible makes many references to human life starting when the infant is born, or takes its first breath, or becomes "quick," that is, starts to move. Tho' what is becoming heart tissue may have some kind of 'flutter' much earlier, it does not have fully organized muscle tissue until the 20th week of pregnancy, i.e. 20 weeks after the zygote implants in the womb, about a week after conception.
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main ... key=167987

The arbitrariness of the claim of human personhood at conception leads to the cruel and insensitive result that a ten year old rape victim is forced to carry the rapist's spawn to term.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/13/11112851 ... raped-ohio

Embryo at 4 weeks:
Claiming that aborting a zygote, or even an embryo is the equivalent of racism is not "right reason."

[RightReason]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #73]

You act like we don't all tacitly do this. Do you really expect me to grab paraplegic Joe as a free agent to play on my football team or hire the mentally infirm to develop my app?

Uuummm . . . no. But I expect you to not kill paraplegic Joe or the mentally ill because you personally have no need for them. And I don’t think that is asking too much.

Now, I know what you're going to say:

Hmmm . . . should I not bother responding then?

You're not talking about external value - you mean internal value.

Uh, no. Not exactly. Paraplegic Joe might not be a good candidate for your football team, but he might be a heck of a physicist. Perhaps not everyone places as great of a value on football or the app you need, so judge differently – sometimes according to externals and sometimes internals. But like I said before, that is neither here nor there. We all are entitled to like/value what we want, but I would think we could all agree every human being has an intrinsic value in simply being human. That is based on science, reason, and the sense of justice that all humans seem to operate with.

You mean some special spark that exists inside, independent of what the being containing it can or can't do.

See above. Again, not exactly. I don’t really think it necessary to reduce being a human being to special spark. It is a bit more straight forward and obvious than that in simply observing and acknowledging science and what we are talking about.

So what are you going to say if I say that spark exists in a cactus?

I would say the cactus lacks both the external and internal value you yourself referred to in comparison to a human being. And I think this is something even a 5 year old can comprehend.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #74]

There is a central problem with your posts on this subject. You assume that when 23 chromosomes from the mother unite with 23 from the father, that at that instant a human being exists with all the rights and privileges of a fully formed, sentient adult homo sapiens.

Right. Because we are talking about a human life and we all know we are talking about a human life. We know we aren’t talking about a bumble bee or a houseplant. That’s science. We know that what now exists has his/her own unique set of DNA, separate from his/her parents. We know that if this human life is not purposely attacked/killed, he/she has a good chance he/she will flourish just like the rest of us. We know that we all started out this way. We know that human life has different stages of development. We know that we don’t give a 3 year old the same rights and privileges as a 21 year old, but that the 6 week old, the 6 month old, the 60 year old, and the 6 month old in utero, all have the right to life, in simply being human.

This is just your assumption.

You make the same assumptions when you recognize toddler Joey and grandpa Joe should expect the right to life and that their lives are not dependent on whether some other human thinks they should live or die or not, even though they are both at different stages of development.

And if it is an assumption, it is based on reason/logic/science and therefore is a good one.

It is every bit as arbitrary as claiming no one is human until it emerges from the birth canal and takes its first breath.

Not really. Because now we have the technology to see and study the human prior to him/her emerging from the birth canal and can know that we are talking about a human. So, my position is not arbitrary. We have the facts/knowledge and can see the reason/logic.

I understand the argument

I’m not sure you do.

,

that when the zygote is formed (a single cell) a unique blend of 46 (sometimes 45 or 47) chromosomes results (if not some grotesque birth defect). So what? According to you that single cell is the equivalent of a young mother of four.

Equivalent as a human life, yes. Equivalent in height/weight or the right to be able to vote? No. So what?

This is as arbitrary and absurd as the claim of the pregnant woman that because she was carrying a fetus, she should be able to use the carpool lane.

Are people that are driving just their own family even allowed to use the carpool lane? I’m not really familiar with carpool lanes. But I do know the grocery store near me has parking spots specifically for pregnant women. So, it does seem that many people recognize the unborn. I also know that if you kill a pregnant woman, you can be charged with double homicide.

There is no Biblical or scientific reference to a zygote being fully human

Weird, but I don’t remember bringing up the Bible as a reference or source in determining human life. The Bible is not a scientific treatise.

yet you assume it is fully human.

No assumption necessary. Science determines this truth. Also, very telling that you felt the need to insert the word fully in there. I assume that means because you know we are talking about a human, so you have to walk back your position to now include some definition of fully.

Your failure to even address this issue may be an example of what Clownboat refers to when he doubts you even read arguments counter to your own.

I will read any argument counter to my own. I simply have not heard a good one yet. But I am open. That’s why I am here.

For what little it may be worth, the Bible makes many references to human life starting when the infant is born, or takes its first breath, or becomes "quick," that is, starts to move.

Again, I did not bring up the Bible and also don’t see why that would be relevant. However since you brought it up . . .

The Bible is as pro-life as it gets.


"You knit me together in my mother's womb," he said, quoting Psalm 139. "You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born."

Scripture references the dignity and value of the unborn, as well as proclaiming commands to not harm one's body, to not kill, to treat others as you would like to be treated, to not destroy God's creation, etc.


And Jesus did address abortion in His statement of authority given to His Church, "He who hears you, hears me and he who rejects you, rejects me, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven", because He spoke to us through His Church, as promised.


Did the early Church mention abortion directly? Yes. The Bible came from Christ's Church. And Christ's Church hardly lacks in-depth discussion of abortion.

And here are what some other early Church writings on the matter:


The Letter of Barnabas:"Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).


The Apocalypse of Peter:"And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion" (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).


Athenagoras:"What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers? . . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God's care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it" (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).


https://www.catholic.com/tract/abortion


It's also important to note that although pagan cultures practiced abortion, God's chosen people were warned against it. Perhaps, Jesus did not specifically address abortion because anyone who was familiar with Genesis, the story of creation, Old Testament writings, and Jewish law would have known abortion is contrary to God's law. Here is the evidence:


Ancient Jews would have been familiar with this stuff:


You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. -Deuteronomy 12:31


Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire -Deuteronomy 8:10


"If men fight and hurt a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follow, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows (the death of mother or child), then you shall give life for life." Exodus 21:22, 23


Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one fashion us in the womb? -Job 31:15


Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you: I ordered you a prophet to the nations. -Jeremiah 1:5



"My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth." -Psalms 15


"Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance, and in Thy book they were all written." -Psalms 16


Please take note the following were ancient writings -- many written before Christ or very shortly after the Resurrection. That the ancient Jews saw abortion as a barbaric abomination is an understatement.


"Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill him when born." Didache 2.2 (c.50-100 AD)


And of course the above is no surprise, because why wouldn't the ancient Jews as well as first Christians have recognized the deliberate destruction of the child in the womb as wrong? It is written in the pages of Scripture as direct revelation from God. We learn in the Bible that human life is different from other life and we are made in God's image. We learn throughout Scripture that children were always a blessing. In fact, it was bareness and infertility that were the curses. Scripture repeatedly condemns the killing of the innocent. We also know from Scripture that God is just and defends those too weak to defend themselves. We also know that Scripture teaches love and that life is victorious over death.


"I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full" (Jn.10:10).

Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." -Matthew 19:14


"Be fruitful and multiply"


"Blessed is the man whose quiver is full"


Grandchildren are the crown of old men,
And the glory of sons is their fathers.-Proverbs 17:6


Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine
Within your house,
Your children like olive plants
Around your table. -Psalmns 128:3


May the Lord give you increase,
You and your children.

The arbitrariness of the claim of human personhood at conception leads to the cruel and insensitive result that a ten year old rape victim is forced to carry the rapist's spawn to term.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/13/11112851 ... raped-ohio

This was one of those emotion based fear mongering claims from the unraveling of the left since the overturn of Roe.

The 10-year-old rape victim’s abortion leaves a number of glaring questions
https://nypost.com/2022/07/12/activist- ... ike-a-lie/

However, even if true, this extreme example is hardly representative of the overwhelming number of abortions in this country. It also doesn't change the fact that we are talking about a human life.

Claiming that aborting a zygote, or even an embryo is the equivalent of racism is not "right reason."

The same tactics were used to dehumanize other groups/classes of people. The Jews were called parasites – so have unborn babies in the womb. African Americans weren’t considered fully human and their votes counted less – the unborn, as you have mentioned, are often considered not fully human. Native Americans were called savages – the unborn are often described as parasites attacking the woman’s body. Throughout history people have tried to dehumanize certain groups/classes of people.




Now that's what I call right reason.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #71]

Readers, do you feel that RightReason is even reading my posts?

You continue to make comments like this and seem to be assuming anyone else reading these posts agrees with you. LOL! I love it when you continue to post things like, “Let’s let the reader decide.” I have absolutely no problem with that. It is my opinion the illogic of your position has been pointed out. I too encourage others to read our conversation. I think everything you have already said speaks for itself. Perhaps, we ought to leave it at that.

You cannot address the value difference that I continue to point out. What more is there to discuss? I point it out, you fail to address it add nauseam.
You also failed to address your own logic where a human life is a human life, just like being sick is being sick (except that there are vast differences in both) as I pointed out. Clearly there are differences in both and I understand why you would not want to address these differences.

I point out these two specific failures. Would you do the same for me that I might sharpen my own thinking if need be? You allude to illogic by me, but could you show what illogical thinking specifically you accuse me of having like I have done for you?

I was hoping you would at least try as this is a debate site. For now, I must continue with my line of reasoning as you have not offered me any reasons as to why I should alter it.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #77]

You cannot address the value difference that I continue to point out.

Ha, ha, ha . . I’ve done nothing but address it. I said how science shows we are talking about a human life, a separate human life with his/her own unique set of DNA. Arguing that some people value an athletic human who is good at football, or a chubby smiling 4 year old, or someone who can do something for them over a human who they find less attractive/”worthy” may be human nature, but is not always the best or appropriate way to judge others. In fact, it is dismissing the truth/facts/science and replacing it with emotion.

I said how the unborn is still a human, but simply at a different stage of development. Again, a 6 week old and a 6 year old and a 60 year old, and a 6 month old in utero all look different, but they are still human. Being human, they have the same value. Their value is intrinsic in being human.

So, there – I just addressed it yet AGAIN!

You also failed to address your own logic where a human life is a human life, just like being sick is being sick

I didn’t address the “sick” argument, because it is a really bad analogy. And one that your own previous argument contradicts. You said you wouldn’t say strapping athletic Joe is equal to paraplegic Joe and yet you agree they are both human, yes? And we should treat them as human, yes? And at least afford each the right to not be killed, yes? Because although they may not be equivalent in skill level/stage/degree of development, they are still both in the same category of being human. This is accurate and fair and true.

Similarly, the common cold may not be the same/equivalent in degree/stage of illness as cancer, but they are both still sicknesses. So, in reality it is right and appropriate to say, “I’m sick”, whether we have cancer or a cold. Now, would someone who has cancer receive the same meds as someone who has a cold? No. But would they both be considered worthy of adequate and good care/treatment? Yes. Again, toddler Timmy doesn’t have the same rights as thirty something Tim, but I can assure you this doesn’t make them less human. And it definitely doesn’t mean it would be ok to kill one over the other. So, your analogy is a fail.

[Clownboat]

You cannot address the value difference that I continue to point out.

Ha, ha, ha . . I’ve done nothing but address it. I said how science shows we are talking about a human life, a separate human life with his/her own unique set of DNA.

And this is what causes me to wonder if you are even reading my posts.

I have acknowledge what you typed above. What you typed above is true. However, your words do not affect the value argument that I'm putting forward.
Calling it human does not address my value argument. Can you address why we should treat them as equals when their value is not the same?
A cold and cancer are both sicknesses. We should treat them the same according to the logic you are putting forth.

Arguing that some people value an athletic human who is good at football, or a chubby smiling 4 year old, or someone who can do something for them over a human who they find less attractive/”worthy” may be human nature, but is not always the best or appropriate way to judge others. In fact, it is dismissing the truth/facts/science and replacing it with emotion.

If we assume this is true, what is the purpose of typing it? Does it show us that the value of a fetus is the same as a baby? I don't see how it comes close to addressing the value difference.

I said how the unborn is still a human, but simply at a different stage of development. Again, a 6 week old and a 6 year old and a 60 year old, and a 6 month old in utero all look different, but they are still human. Being human, they have the same value. Their value is intrinsic in being human.

Beautiful! Again, something we can test to see if your words are true.
Burning building. 5 blastocysts in a jar or a 1 year old in the corner. Which do you choose to save? Surely you will save the blastocysts as they have 5 times the value of the fetus if your words are true.

Which do you save? Their value is intrinsic in being human afterall, so you would choose the 5 blastocysts if your words are indeed true. Are they true?

So, there – I just addressed it yet AGAIN!

How can you say you have addressed it when you have failed to address it at every opportunity.
Clownboat: "Which would you save?"
RightReason: "They have unique DNA."
Clownboat: "I wonder if RightReason is reading my posts."

Did you save the 1 year old or the 5 blastocysts?

You also failed to address your own logic where a human life is a human life, just like being sick is being sick

I didn’t address the “sick” argument, because it is a really bad analogy.

Then show it to be so rather than just duck and dodge it. Should be simple if it is bad.

And one that your own previous argument contradicts. You said you wouldn’t say strapping athletic Joe is equal to paraplegic Joe and yet you agree they are both human, yes?

That was PurpleKnight. At least you read his post.

I would love to see a football team you put together though. Just gotta be a human huh? Is that all that matters really? Can you not think of some differences between humans that might supply more value to your team when compared to another human? The logic you are putting in place would ignore the differences because all that matter is that you have humans on your team.

My team would slaughter yours on the field because I would acknowledge the differences while acknowledging that all my choices are still human. The same, yet different and certainly when it comes to sports like PurpleKnight referred to, a strapping athlete would have more value than a parapalegic.

When discussing abortion, we cannot just examine a similarity and discount the differences.

Similarly, the common cold may not be the same/equivalent in degree/stage of illness as cancer, but they are both still sicknesses.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!
A blastocysts and a 1 year old are both human, but they don't have the same/equivalent dregree/stage of value when they are compared.
You know this and is why you will not answer my burning building question that displays the value difference.

So, in reality it is right and appropriate to say, “I’m sick”, whether we have cancer or a cold. Now, would someone who has cancer receive the same meds as someone who has a cold? No.

But they are both sicknesses, just like how a blastocysts and a 1 year old are both humans. Like a blastocysts is to a 1 year old, a cold is to cancer. Meaning they are the same in one respect (both human or both a sickness), but to disregard the differences would be to treat a cold patient with chemo.

But would they both be considered worthy of adequate and good care/treatment? Yes. Again, toddler Timmy doesn’t have the same rights as thirty something Tim, but I can assure you this doesn’t make them less human.

For the love of all that is holy, please read what I type and not what you want to place on me.
I have not and do not argue that one is less human then another. I point out that the value is different and continue to show that my claim is true by having you continue to fail to address it. The 'it' is the burning building and the fact you should save the 5 blastocysts over the 1 year old because they have 5 times the intrinsic value according to your words (yet you continue to fail to provide an answer).

And it definitely doesn’t mean it would be ok to kill one over the other. So, your analogy is a fail.

This reads to me like:
I can't answer your question honestly without revealing the weakness of my position, so I will just claim that your analogy fails and not answer it once again.
Did you save the 5 blastocysts or the 1 year old?
Would you prefer to have a cold or cancer? Both are a sickness afterall.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #79]

And this is what causes me to wonder if you are even reading my posts.

And me if you are reading mine.

I have acknowledge what you typed above. What you typed above is true.

Thank you.

However, your words do not affect the value argument that I'm putting forward.

They do. I point out in numerous ways, in drawing your own argument out to its logical conclusion, the silliness of it. I have patiently now several times tried to show you the problem with offering an analogy that compares apples to oranges.


I have pointed out that we aren’t talking about choosing a football team or whether a person needs chemo or Cold medicine. Yes, in those kinds of situations, we need to make value judgments based on specific qualifications. If you aren’t good at catching and throwing, then you probably won’t make a great football player. If you just have a cold and not cancer, you are not a good candidate for chemo. Did we really have to make an analogy to demonstrate this? In fact, I even offered similar comparisons to saying things like we wouldn’t give a 4 year old the right to drive a car because he is at a different stage of development than a 40 year old. But again, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I pointed out that it is reasonable and right to make value judgments for specific purposes, but the right to life is excluded from such determination, because the right to life is not something that can be granted by the state. It is intrinsic to being human. And it is not based on what said human can “bring to the table”.

You are comparing apples to oranges. And if we want to make a more accurate analogy, it would be like saying since you are no good for my football team, I should be able to kill you. Or since you have cancer and not just a cold, I should be able to kill you. Uh, yeah . . . NO! You want to equate choosing someone for a team based on development level with choosing to kill someone based on development level. That doesn’t logically follow.

Different humans at different stages of development have different skills/talents/abilities. This doesn’t mean we kill the ones that don’t meet our needs or the ones we don’t want to have to deal with. Yeah, that’s not cool. You’re lucky others have given you the right to remain living. Be sure to continue to make yourself useful and not be too much of a burden, otherwise someone could be arguing for the right to eliminate you.

Calling it human does not address my value argument. Can you address why we should treat them as equals when their value is not the same?

Yes. There value is the same in referring to their value in being human. They are by scientific observation/study human and all humans have the right to life for being human. And for the same reason that we shouldn’t off grandpa just because he is now at a different stage of development and can’t contribute as much as he use to. Grandpa continues to have his right to life, even though according to someone else’s standards he is now less valuable. His value of being a human has not changed.

A cold and cancer are both sicknesses. We should treat them the same according to the logic you are putting forth.

Wrong. A cold and cancer are both sicknesses and should be treated as the sicknesses they are, but in neither case can we make the irrational claim that the sickness doesn’t exist. If you honestly think you can make the argument that since we humans treat some things, even though in the same category, different, we therefore should be able to kill the unborn? The leap doesn’t even make sense. The comparison doesn’t make sense. Please listen to yourself.

Arguing that some people value an athletic human who is good at football, or a chubby smiling 4 year old, or someone who can do something for them over a human who they find less attractive/”worthy” may be human nature, but is not always the best or appropriate way to judge others. In fact, it is dismissing the truth/facts/science and replacing it with emotion.

If we assume this is true, what is the purpose of typing it? Does it show us that the value of a fetus is the same as a baby? I don't see how it comes close to addressing the value difference.

I don’t see how your argument comes close to addressing a value difference. There is no value difference in value of life, which is intrinsic to being human. No one is denying the value difference in choosing an athletic guy for your football team over a paraplegic. No one. And unless you think it’s ok to kill the paraplegic since he’s no good for your football team, then you are comparing apples to oranges.


My point is we all can see and know that the athlete and the paraplegic do have equal value as humans. In the same way, we can see/know the value of the unborn is equal to the 6 week old in being both human.

I said how the unborn is still a human, but simply at a different stage of development. Again, a 6 week old and a 6 year old and a 60 year old, and a 6 month old in utero all look different, but they are still human. Being human, they have the same value. Their value is intrinsic in being human.

Beautiful! Again, something we can test to see if your words are true.
Burning building. 5 blastocysts in a jar or a 1 year old in the corner. Which do you choose to save? Surely you will save the blastocysts as they have 5 times the value of the fetus if your words are true.

The problem with your scenario is it appears you still do not understand the value and sanctity of life. Neither the 5 embryos or the 1 year old have less human value. Do you not recognize the value in saving even one life? It would be noble to save any of the embryos and or the 1 year old. It would be a good thing.


Also, I think it worth noting the inherent problems with IVF. As you can see, one of the problems with it is the creation of embryos that are then in limbo. Had someone in a lab not tried to play God those embryos would not be in that situation to begin with. They would already exist in the mother’s womb and not in a test tube. It separates child from mother, which isn’t cool.


And as I said earlier, even if a person did save whomever they personally valued more (I used the example of one’s own child over a different child, or one mistress over a different mistress), this doesn’t mean that someone else’s child has less value. You can admit this right? So, again, I’m afraid your hypothetical does not mean what you wish it means.

Which do you save? Their value is intrinsic in being human afterall, so you would choose the 5 blastocysts if your words are indeed true. Are they true?

Sure. If I knew there were 5 embryos in the burning building it would be good and right for me to save them. Is there a neon sign over the embryos telling me they are there? It would also be good and right for me to save the 1 year old. Both would be demonstrating the value and dignity of human life. We don’t really say that the lives of Billy, Susie, Johnny, Bobby, and Jane have more value than the life of Jenny. I think maybe this is your error – that you do not understand the value of each unique beautiful individual.

I would love to see a football team you put together though. Just gotta be a human huh?

Not at all what I said. In fact, I agreed we place value judgments for specific qualifications for things. This doesn’t mean we think anyone that doesn’t meet our criteria for something ought to be killed. You understand the difference, right?


My team would be tough and I would probably have enough for a team. You on the other hand, might have aborted your team before they even got the chance to play football.

My team would slaughter yours on the field

Still better than being slaughtered before getting on the field and never getting to play the game.

I would acknowledge the differences while acknowledging that all my choices are still human.

Not all human choices are right or good. The choice to rape or murder or enslave are all human choices made by humans throughout history, but this doesn’t make them right or good.


Why can’t you acknowledge that human beings go through different stages of development, but during all of the stages they are still human and have the right to exist/live? This is very strange to me.

When discussing abortion, we cannot just examine a similarity and discount the differences.

Why not? We do that with every other human stage of development every time we don’t kill a 3 year old for not being as smart as a 30 year old.

Did you save the 5 blastocysts or the 1 year old?

I would think either decision a valid one. I would feel good if I knew I was responsible for saving a life.

Would you prefer to have a cold or cancer? Both are a sickness afterall.

I couldn’t have a cold or cancer if I wasn’t first given the right to life. Something your scenario doesn’t account for. Once alive, I would prefer to have a cold to cancer and I would especially prefer a doctor who wouldn’t refuse me medicine for cancer to just let me die, because he thinks it would be easier and more convenient if he didn’t have to deal with a patient with cancer and that he prefers only those who get colds.