- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Question for pro choice advocates
Posted on 5/26/19 at 1:59 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 5/26/19 at 1:59 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:it's funny that your lack of understanding of the op doesn't even bother you
The "thoughts" of a zygote or a fetus is your big BOOM?
1
Posted on 5/26/19 at 2:00 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
concession
I know you know better.
Posted on 5/26/19 at 2:00 pm to bfniii
quote:
understanding
Don't use words if you can't do it properly.
Posted on 5/26/19 at 2:01 pm to AggieHank86
quote:ALREADY REFUTED. this is what's left. just keep repeating it until someone stops responding. FTW!
The early-term fetus involved in the early-term abortions that most of us support HAS no higher brain function
quote:how many times are people going to fail the sled test
It cannot “feel” anything, and it certainly cannot “care” about anything
quote:ad hoc
since it is incapable of abstract thought
Posted on 5/26/19 at 2:01 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
know you know better.
Oh I had no doubt you wouldn’t consider it a concession., but your refusal to answer a simple question is just that. I remain undefeated. Your day will come, my friend.
Posted on 5/26/19 at 2:02 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Let me know when you're caught up
so you don't have a substantive response. that's all you had to say. you realize you've contributed nothing substantive to this discussion, right? you're still resisting the op. you still haven't responded to the challenge i gave youPosted on 5/26/19 at 2:02 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
your refusal to answer a simple question is just that.
I did answer it. You just didn't like the answer.
Posted on 5/26/19 at 2:04 pm to bfniii
quote:
so you don't have a substantive response.
Already covered. Go back and read it if you need to.
quote:
you still haven't responded to the challenge i gave you
Of course I did. You can go back and read that, too.
Posted on 5/26/19 at 2:04 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:link?
Your argument isn't new or compelling, and it's been refuted
quote:oh i'm familiar with the silly attempts. let's see if you can even formulate a rebuttal that is more sophisticated than the junior high playground
We both know why you haven't found that information
Posted on 5/26/19 at 2:04 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I did answer it
This post was edited on 5/26/19 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 5/26/19 at 2:06 pm to AggieHank86
quote:i issued you a simple challenge. you responded with a dumb picture
This really is starting to resemble an attempt to discuss calculus with a chimpanzee.
quote:really? quote that. because no response you have given so far addresses personhood nor does it pass the sled test with your ad hoc brain activity assertion which i have responded to multiple times. you are starting to sound like 90proof with the "nuh unh" responses
I explained IN DETAIL why a cutoff for elective abortions at some point prior to 24-30 weeks IS “erring on the side of caution.”
Posted on 5/26/19 at 2:06 pm to bfniii
quote:
link?
Already provided.
Get to it.
Posted on 5/26/19 at 2:07 pm to BBONDS25
I accept your concession.
Still undefeated.
Still undefeated.
Posted on 5/26/19 at 2:09 pm to bfniii
quote:I assure you that I understand the science, the philosophy and the politics ALL far better than you.
you don't even understand your own position. you are (correctly) saying that heartbeat should not be the determining factor. since heartbeat is a purely biological function, then brain activity is ruled out as well. this is addressed by the sled test. logically, you should be looking at personhood AS WELL AS biological factors.
Small sentences, for your benefit.
All animal life has a heartbeat. That clearly is not the distinguishing factor.
All higher animal life has brain function of some sort. Again, clearly not the distinguishing factor.
Only our species has the type of HIGHER brain function associated with sapience. Thus, it IS a potential candidate as the distinguishing factor.
That sort of higher brain function does not develop until VERY late in a pregnancy.
Thus, barring elective abortion at some point BEFORE the development of that function IS “erring on the side of caution” regarding that potential distinguishing factor. I have said this several times, and it is a DIRECT response to the question posed in the OP.
If YOUR candidate for the distinguishing factor is some sort of metaphysical hokum or the simple presence of 23 chromosome pairs, I can certainly see why you would argue that barring ALL abortions os the ONLY way to “err on the side of caution” ... even if I think that your candidate is based upon a ridiculous premise.
Either such metric is JUST AS ARBITRARY as any other potential metric.
Posted on 5/26/19 at 2:10 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:i asked you to address the op. you haven't. i asked you to link where someone refuted personhood. you googled the word science.
Don't use words if you can't do it properly
don't you have a keg handstand to get back to?Posted on 5/26/19 at 2:11 pm to bfniii
quote:You keep using this term. Are you attempting to reference the dreaded “slippery slope?”
sled test
Posted on 5/26/19 at 2:14 pm to bfniii
quote:You keep saying this, as well. The OP asked “Why not err on the side of caution?”. That question has been addressed REPEATEDLY.
anyone notice how NONE of the pro choice people have even attempted to address the op?
Posted on 5/26/19 at 2:16 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I accept your concession. Still undefeated.
Posted on 5/26/19 at 2:18 pm to AggieHank86
quote:once again. this fails the sled test directly. you are just repeating an already refuted assertion. higher brain activity is first, ad hoc. second, subjective and vague because you can't establish definitively when a fetus gains such "function." third because it is purely biological in a matter that is not purely biological. i have already address all this. you can advance the discussion by responding to these points or just keep robotically repeating your already refuted assertions.
Only our species has the type of HIGHER brain function associated with sapience
quote:no, it's not. you are trying to use a comparison to animals as a justification for killing a human being for convenience. it's a stupid premise.
Thus, it IS a potential candidate as the distinguishing factor
quote:negative. if a fetus is potentially a PERSON, which it is, that is absolutely NOT erring on the side of caution. not in the slightest.
barring elective abortion at some point BEFORE the development of that function IS “erring on the side of caution”
quote:there we go. you can't refute the premise. that's all you had to say. when in doubt, just put your fingers in you ears and say "NAH NAH NAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU"
metaphysical hokum
now, if you REALLY wanted to rebut this point, you could PROVE that it's hokum but using, you know, actual philosophical/rhetorical arguments. but my money is on more repetitions and insulting graphics
quote:this is a human being. it should not be killed because i don't want to deal with the hassle
the simple presence of 23 chromosome pairs
quote:never said that. but keep misrepresenting my position
that barring ALL abortions
Posted on 5/26/19 at 2:19 pm to AggieHank86
quote:so you don't even understand the debate. that's what i thought. that's why you keep returning to home base "animal" comparison
ou keep using this term. Are you attempting to reference the dreaded “slippery slope?
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News