[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

When you said this:
You said that on page 10, 03-13-2006, 08:18 AM

Nowhere did I say anything about putting anyone in jail. BTW there are lots of things that are not legal, that one doesn't get jailed for.

If you don't put offenders in jail, how are you going to stop abortion? Give them a ticket?

I said I didn't think it should be made LEGAL. Just because something is not legal doesn't mean someone automatically goes to jail for it.

None of this proves anything against me. I said happenstance is coincidence. Your posted definition says happenstance is a chance circumstance. A coincidence = a chance circumstance. So what's your point?

I posted the definitions of all of said words so you couldn't spin. But you did it anyhow.

My point was, I wasn't incorrect. Your little grammar tantrum was just that.

A horrible diversion tactic.

So you have non-factual proof. Is that admissible in court?

No, I have proof. You aren't paying attention. Proof does not = fact unless you can explain WHY.

Where do I go to see see these conscious people without brains?

Ever heard of out of body experiences? Scientists you know support these happenstance's. They don't know HOW they happen. But they do know they HAPPEN.

I suggest you do some more research. (And before you spaz out and claim it's BS, I suggest you follow my advice)

Kevin, you've gone off the deep end. Buzz your nurse and ask her to lower your dosage.

Listening to a man who believes in "brainless conscisouness" and "non-factual proofs" about delusions is just sad. Where should I mail the get well card?

Ad-hominem.

I'm predictable because I'm stable.

No, predictable because you have been doing the same spin since you got here.

Ad-hominems just make you appear desperate.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

You have to be more specific. You mean DNA has nothing to do with ethics when it comes to abortions right?

What about the ethics of altering human DNA for genetic research? Like creating a man with a horse penis?

Ok, you got me. Nice.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin

There is proof of humans having consciousness outside their bodies.

Where do I go to see this? Please, I gotta see this! Please!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Where do I go to see this? Please, I gotta see this! Please!

What is there to see?

While you are acting condescending, you aren't doing much for your argument.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Nowhere did I say anything about putting anyone in jail. BTW there are lots of things that are not legal, that one doesn't get jailed for.

I said I didn't think it should be made LEGAL. Just because something is not legal doesn't mean someone automatically goes to jail for it.

So again I ask: what do we do with the offenders? 100 hrs of public service? A scarlet letter? A public canning? What?

Originally Posted by Kevin

My point was, I wasn't incorrect. Your little grammar tantrum was just that.

Actually, that was a diction tantrum.

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, I have proof. You aren't paying attention. Proof does not = fact unless you can explain WHY.

So it is not a fact that the sky is blue unless you know why the sky is blue? And you're equivocating again anyway.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ever heard of out of body experiences? Scientists you know support these happenstance's. They don't know HOW they happen. But they do know they HAPPEN.

Do they? Gotta reference? (Of course not.)

Originally Posted by Kevin

I suggest you do some more research.

Just gimme a place to start. Better yet: I'll let you off the hook. Start a new thread on the subject, with your supporting references.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ad-hominems just make you appear desperate.

Maybe. But they can be fun too.

Act crazy, and you'll get called crazy. Remember how you treated Monique?

Gee, that sounds like Karma. Looks like your "beliefs" are coming back to haunt you!

[Spliffdaddy]

lol. canadians.

Look, the abortion debate in the US doesn't even concern you.

Even if your opinion had merit, it would still be worthless.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why do we have laws protecting humans that go above animals?

Mainly because we are selfish. Past that, though, as I have said, humans deserve more consideration than lower animals for the same reason a cat deserves more consideration than a bacterium — the human mind is much more advanced.

Originally Posted by Kevin

No that is a poor comparison. No one really believes rocks think. There is no proof of rocks thinking.

There is proof of humans having consciousness outside their bodies.

I've never seen any that struck me as super-credible, and certainly nothing to even suggest that a creature that has never had a brain is capable of intelligent thought any more than a plant or a rock.

Most of the "woo floaty spirit" stories I've seen are from sources that seem less than meticulous in their methodology.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

lol. canadians.

Look, the abortion debate in the US doesn't even concern you.

Even if your opinion had merit, it would still be worthless.

Gee, I thought this was an abstract discussion about the value of life and freedom? Certainly that applies to everyone?

If I remember correctly, Canadian opinion on American problems has been relevant in the past. Remember the Underground Railroad? How about 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan?

Of course, Americans are notorious for not worry about the problems of other nations, aren't they? I mean, it took the US almost 4 years to notice the Germans were trying to conquer Europe. Both times.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ever heard of out of body experiences? Scientists you know support these happenstance's. They don't know HOW they happen. But they do know they HAPPEN.

They know that experiences labeled "out-of-body experiences" happen. This is not the same thing as knowing that experiences actually happen out of the body.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

So again I ask: what do we do with the offenders? 100 hrs of public service? A scarlet letter? A public canning? What?

Why are you so obsessed with punishing people?

So it is not a fact that the sky is blue unless you know why the sky is blue? And you're equivocating again anyway.

No, meaning we see that out of body experiences as they call them happen. We don't know they are exactly THAT because we cannot explain them. Dig?

Do they? Gotta reference? (Of course not.)

Well David Wilde, of the University of Manchester is doing a study now.

Act crazy, and you'll get called crazy. Remember how you treated Monique?

What I am saying and what Monica is saying aren't comparable. I am talking about an actual happenstance. Monique speaks about hateful delusions.

Gee, that sounds like Karma. Looks like your "beliefs" are coming back to haunt you!

No.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Mainly because we are selfish. Past that, though, as I have said, humans deserve more consideration than lower animals for the same reason a cat deserves more consideration than a bacterium — the human mind is much more advanced.

I've never seen any that struck me as super-credible, and certainly nothing to even suggest that a creature that has never had a brain is capable of intelligent thought any more than a plant or a rock.

Most of the "woo floaty spirit" stories I've seen are from sources that seem less than meticulous in their methodology.

Well that is your opinion. And you are more than welcome to share it.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

They know that experiences labeled "out-of-body experiences" happen. This is not the same thing as knowing that experiences actually happen out of the body.

Which is what I was attempting to explain.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Of course, Americans are notorious for not worry about the problems of other nations, aren't they? I mean, it took the US almost 4 years to notice the Germans were trying to conquer Europe. Both times.

And now we try to make up for that by getting rid of the Hitlers before they have a chance.

And we still get flack.

We are the country, people love to hate.

I am sure they will get over it. Or not. I really don't care.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna
So again I ask: what do we do with the offenders? 100 hrs of public service? A scarlet letter? A public canning? What?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why are you so obsessed with punishing people?

Why are you ducking the question?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well David Wilde, of the University of Manchester is doing a study now.

You mean this guy? http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/cont..._feature.shtml

He isn't saying anything close to "there is proof that the body isn't even needed to be "conscience." He's looking for why some people seem to have out-of-body experiences. Don't put your ridiculous slant into the mouths of scientists.

Really, feelings of dissociation from reality are probably common. (You are a key example. ) That doesn't mean people actually leave their bodies!

Enough of this stupidity. Start a different thread on the matter. Just give up OBE as being even remotely relevant to abortion. It is as useful as asking aliens about the national debt.

Originally Posted by Kevin

What I am saying and what Monica is saying aren't comparable. I am talking about an actual happenstance. Monique speaks about hateful delusions.

Sez you. Maybe Monique is hateful, but you are definitely delusional.

[Uncle Skeleton]

If you believe that the unborns' bodies are not necessary to sustain their consciousnesses, why would you object to their bodies being destroyed?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And now we try to make up for that by getting rid of the Hitlers before they have a chance.

Really? Both Hussein and Bin Laden were former US allies. If you don't want more "Hitlers" stop training, funding, and arming them.

Originally Posted by Kevin

And we still get flack.

Before you start a war, have a little proof first. Canada has always supported a just cause. We were there to fight the Axis, we were there to fight the North Koreans, we were there to fight the Taliban (and still are). But we aren't interested in phoney stories about WMDs.

Originally Posted by Kevin

We are the country, people love to hate.

I don't hate America. I love it. I'm just not too fond of ultraconservatives (or any other authoritarians). Big difference.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

If you believe that the unborns' bodies are not necessary to sustain their consciousnesses, why would you object to their bodies being destroyed?

Yeah! Aren't they "in a better place?"

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And now we try to make up for that by getting rid of the Hitlers before they have a chance.

Minority Report II: Foreign Policy?

[mrcolton]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

lol. canadians.

Look, the abortion debate in the US doesn't even concern you.

Even if your opinion had merit, it would still be worthless.

I am all for keeping abortion legal in canada! As a matter of fact, it should be mandatory!

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Somebody who is so developmentally disabled that he isn't sentient? Sounds like brain death to me. And many do consider it morally OK to let the brain-dead die.

I guess. I just checked my dictionary widget which says "able to perceive or feel things."

I think that someone who is severely cognitively disabled, but not brain dead is not sentient. But that my opinion.

Question to anyone: At what age do we become sentient? I don't think we are sentient at birth. But again, that's the way I always thought sentience was defined.

[Chuckit]

Newborns seem to perceive and process things. They lack a lot of knowledge, but their brains are specialized for learning very quickly. I would say a newborn is sentient.

[turtle777]

Wow, page 15

We gotta start to pwn the pages...

-t

[abe]

I just saw this argument used on Law & Order SVU by Shirley Jones (playing an attorney).

Doctors, at 18 weeks, can operate on an embryo. So, how can a baby be a patient but not a person?

Please excuse if this point has already been addressed, but I thought it should be added to the debate. A debate I might add I have intentionally refrained from taking part in until now.

[abe]

Originally Posted by mrcolton

I am all for keeping abortion legal in canada! As a matter of fact, it should be mandatory!

[Chuckit]

Doctors can operate on rats too.

Anyway, though, I think 18 weeks is about where most people would draw the line on abortion definitely being OK. In general, I think people are less comfortable with third-trimester abortions than they are just with the concept of abortion in general.

[Spliffdaddy]

Why would it matter how old the fetus is?

It's not a human, right?

If it turns your stomache at 18 weeks, it should do the same at 1 week.

[Chuckit]

Who are you talking to?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Why are you ducking the question?

Because I have already answered it about 4 or 5 times. Dig? Start paying attention.

You mean this guy? http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/cont..._feature.shtml

He isn't saying anything close to "there is proof that the body isn't even needed to be "conscience." He's looking for why some people seem to have out-of-body experiences. Don't put your ridiculous slant into the mouths of scientists.

Wasn't putting any SLANT into it

I suggest you read this as well
http://home.comcast.net/~neardeath/n..._pages/68.html

Really, feelings of dissociation from reality are probably common. (You are a key example. ) That doesn't mean people actually leave their bodies!

That doesn't mean they don't. Esp when there have been cases of people being BRAIN DEAD when it happened. Some Scientists will claim it's a malfunction of the brain. But how can it be so when it has happened after the brain was "dead"

And then there are the NDE

http://skepdic.com/nde.html

One study found that 8 to 12 percent of 344 patients resuscitated after suffering cardiac arrest had NDEs and about 18% remembered some part of what happened when they were clinically dead (Lancet, December 15, 2001).*
Who are making these studies? Scientists.

Enough of this stupidity.

I agree, it's time for you to leave.

Start a different thread on the matter. Just give up OBE as being even remotely relevant to abortion. It is as useful as asking aliens about the national debt.

No, it is related. You just don't like it being brought up. It's horrible for your argument.

Sez you. Maybe Monique is hateful, but you are definitely delusional.

And if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.

But there you go again, treating your personal opinion as fact.

Who knows when you'll stop that. I doubt ever. It's the only vice you have.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Really? Both Hussein and Bin Laden were former US allies. If you don't want more "Hitlers" stop training, funding, and arming them.

Ah, I love newbies. Ones that form arguments in here that have been smacked down for years.

We never trained either one to be TERRORISTS.

If I train someone to use a gun in self defense. And they many years down the road murder someone. That isn't my fault. Dig?

Before you start a war, have a little proof first. Canada has always supported a just cause. We were there to fight the Axis, we were there to fight the North Koreans, we were there to fight the Taliban (and still are). But we aren't interested in phoney stories about WMDs.

Cept Canada believed in teh WMDs too. It wasn't till the Democratps started their FUD Did Canada suddenly take an about face. Looking for any excuse.

I don't hate America. I love it. I'm just not too fond of ultraconservatives (or any other authoritarians). Big difference.

No, you aren't found of anyone that doesn't agree with you.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Doctors can operate on rats too.

Chuck you come up with the most bizzarro comparisons ever.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Chuck you come up with the most bizzarro comparisons ever.

I try to keep them interesting. They are generally alike in the respects being compared, however, so I think it's all good fun.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

They are generally alike in the respects being compared

It was a bizarre comparison. One that attempts to dehumanize a growing, living human.

[Chuckit]

If you choose to see it that way, I guess. It's actually one that proves being operable is a wacky litmus test for being a person.

[Kevin]

It's not something I choose to see. It's common sense.

Some lack it.

[Busemann]

'And this time, his comparison was bizzare! I've never seen the like.'

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's not something I choose to see. It's common sense.

Some lack it.

So operability is a litmus test for personhood? Or am I actually right but you just want to be petty about it?

You saw it as some attempt to dehumanize blah-blah-blah-conspiracy-cakes. That ain't what it was. You are the one not showing sense here. I wasn't commenting on whether or not a fetus is a person there — I'm just saying that whether or not you can perform an operation on it is irrelevant to the question, because you can perform operations on a lot of things that are not people.

[Kevin]

No conspiracy. That is exactly what doing that does.

[Chuckit]

Nonsense. I was just showing that his suggested test for personhood is too inclusive — it includes things that are definitely not people. If you would like to explain how that "dehumanizes" anything, be my guest.

[Kevin]

By comparing HUMANs to ANIMALS you attempt to dehumanize humans. On purpose or not.

Would you like being compared to a rat?

We are indeed different than rats.

We should indeed, be treated differently as well.

If you don't understand this simple bit of common sense. I don't know what to tell you Chuckit.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

By comparing HUMANs to ANIMALS you attempt to dehumanize humans. On purpose or not.

Would you like being compared to a rat?

I wouldn't feel one way or another. Jesus, if you react this strongly to a simple, completely valid comparison, I'd like to suggest that you stop discussing any issues of importance until you're able to look at things from a more rational standpoint.

Abe: "This thing can be operated on, so it must be a person."
Me: "That theory doesn't work, because lots of animals can be operated on, and they're not people."
Kevin: "OMG U COMPARDED US TO TEH AMINELS! STOP DEHUMANIZING MEEEEE!"

In a biological discussion in which we're trying to determine the criteria for humanity, humans might be compared to other creatures to find out what makes them different. Don't jump on my back over it.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I wouldn't feel one way or another. Jesus, if you react this strongly to a simple, completely valid comparison, I'd like to suggest that you stop discussing any issues of importance until you're able to look at things from a more rational standpoint.

His hostility probably stems from this:

Once you admit personhood can be defined naturalistically/scientifically, a lot of arguments against early-term abortion don't make sense.

Only theological definitions of personhood justify that position.

Hence, the knee-jerking.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

completely valid comparison

IMHO you mean don't you?

I'd like to suggest that you stop discussing any issues of importance until you're able to look at things from a more rational standpoint.

I don't see comparing a growing living human to a rat as being rational.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by strictlyplaid

His hostility probably stems from this:

Any hostility here is purely projected.

Once you admit personhood can be defined naturalistically/scientifically, a lot of arguments against early-term abortion don't make sense.

Only theological definitions of personhood justify that position.

Hence, the knee-jerking.

No knee-jerk. This whole thread has been people trying to belittle human life by calling it things but what it actually is.

This trend did not start till the pro-"choice" movement started.

It's disgusting in the same way the Nazi anti-Jew propaganda films were. As they attempted to do the same thing.

De-humanize the Jew to make them murdering them look less bad.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This whole thread has been people trying to belittle human life by calling it things but what it actually is.

The whole point has been that what human life (or more to the point, personhood) is is not an easy thing to get at.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's disgusting in the same way the Nazi anti-Jew propaganda films were. As they attempted to do the same thing.

So you're criticizing comparisons by making Nazi comparisons.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

IMHO you mean don't you?

No, I don't. Nobody has even disputed the accuracy of the comparison — that is, both rats and late-term fetuses can be operated on. You'd made some vague complaint about how the comparison is "dehumanizing," but you haven't actually showed anything logically wrong with it.

[Spliffdaddy]

Whenever we're finished arguing, the Supreme Court is gonna let the states decide the legality of abortion.

Thank goodness.

There won't be any abortions in my home state of Kentucky - I'll guarantee ya that.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

There won't be any abortions in my home state of Kentucky - I'll guarantee ya that.

That sounds like a wager to me!

Paypal me $100 if a Kentuckian gets an abortion within, say, one year after it's been illegalized. I send you the same if no abortions takes place within the same timeframe. Heck, make that a month

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Whenever we're finished arguing, the Supreme Court is gonna let the states decide the legality of abortion.

Thank goodness.

There won't be any abortions in my home state of Kentucky - I'll guarantee ya that.

That'll work until people start crossing state lines to get them.

The practical effect will be: only people who can afford to fly to a blue state can have an abortion.

So people with the least capacity to take care of children will be the ones forced to bring them to term. Funny how once fetuses really are people, we stop worrying about their welfare quite so much.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell

So you're criticizing comparisons by making Nazi comparisons.

No I am criticizing comparisons used to dehumanize humans.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

No, I don't. Nobody has even disputed the accuracy of the comparison

I think that is what I have been doing isn't it?

that is, both rats and late-term fetuses can be operated on.

Yes they both can be operated on. But within context to your comparison you were basically saying "So what, so can a rat" as if a rat and a living growing human both were on equal plains.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yes they both can be operated on. But within context to your comparison you were basically saying "So what, so can a rat" as if a rat and a living growing human both were on equal plains.

That's what he's saying, too. Just being able to be operated on doesn't make you a person, because a rat isn't a person yet it can be operated upon. Sheesh!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I think that is what I have been doing isn't it?

Nope. You've been objecting to it, but have not claimed it's false.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yes they both can be operated on.

And you are still claiming it's valid, since that was the comparison.

Originally Posted by Kevin

But within context to your comparison you were basically saying "So what, so can a rat" as if a rat and a living growing human both were on equal plains.

As far as being "things that can be identified," they are on an equal plane. My point is that being capable of having an operation isn't enough to distinguish one from the other. Since you have agreed that they are alike in their ability to have an operation, I don't see how you can disagree with this conclusion.

Here's a precise description of my logic. Find a flaw in it.

Premise I: Rats can be operated on.
Premise II: Fetuses can be operated on.
Premise III: Being operated on is proof of personhood. (Note: This was aberdeenwriter's suggestion)
Conclusion A: Rats are people.
Premise IV: Conclusion A is false.
Premise V: When we deductively arrive at false conclusion, one of the premises must be false.
Premise VI: Premises I and II are not false.
Conclusion B: Premise III is false.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Here's a precise description of my logic. Find a flaw in it.

Premise I: Rats can be operated on.
Premise II: Fetuses can be operated on.
Premise III: Being operated on is proof of personhood. (Note: This was aberdeenwriter's suggestion)
Conclusion A: Rats are people.
Premise IV: Conclusion A is false.
Premise V: When we deductively arrive at false conclusion, one of the premises must be false.
Premise VI: Premises I and II are not false.
Conclusion B: Premise III is false.

More succinctly:

p = can be operated on
q = is a person

aberdeen's Proposition:
p->q

By modus tollens, p->q = ~q -> ~p.

Chuckit says: for rats, (~q AND p) is true.

Therefore p->q is false.