Not at all. I was trying to show you that you were using the same "circular reasoning" that you are accusing me of using. That's all. In hindsight, can we both agree that blacks were "whole" (not 3/5's) persons - regardless of what the Constitution or the Dred Scott decision said they were? In that same veign... Can we not also agree that a human child in the first stage of their life is a "person" - whether or not our laws (at any given time) agree that they are 'persons?' Was the abolishment of slavery - just a tool to strip slave owners of their rights to own slaves as property?
Interesting Chuz brings up Dred Scott....since I noted that in a "Roe overturned America" where you had "Pro-life" and Pro-Choice states....a "Dred Scott" situation could arise where a woman from a "Pro-Life" State left for a Pro-Choice state to get an abortion... and the "Pro-Life" State might demand her extradition back to "stand trial for murder." In that case, Chuz would likely SUPPORT a decision like Dred Scott featuring "Dredda Scott." - - - Updated - - - Who's the "slave" and who's the "master" in a "abortion-slavery" analogy?
It is reality none the less and clearly you do not operate in reality which of course is no surprise. I did not think that it was possible to demonstrate a more lacking integrity that you had till now, yet you have proven me wrong.
I deny that you have come up with anything resembling a valid argument in support of your claim. I deny that your "Appeal to Authority" makes your claim true. I agree that you do not seem to understand what logical fallacy is very well. In your post you ask me if a "human being is a human being" This is called "assuming the premise" and it is fallacy. You are assuming in your post that a zygote is a human being when clearly that is what we are debating. What I claim is that you have not provided any support for this claim other than "some group passed a bill which says so" Hopefully this helps but I think it would be good for your to review some websites that cover logical fallacies.
Not a bit of it. I will explain. This was your statement: For us to agree with your assertion, we would first have to agree that a zygote is a "human being". Which I, for one, do not, regardless of these definitions in the law: You're basically trying to convince us that this law merely recognizes a human being previously denied rights, when in fact it creates a definition of "unborn child" that is the equivalent of creating personhood for a zygote. And at the same time you're trying to persuade us that those on the pro-choice are the ones trying to define personhood, when it's clearly the pro-lifers who already managed to get a law passed doing so, and continue to try to pass such laws at the state level as well. In other words, your arguments hold about as much water as an empy pail with no bottom, sitting in the desert, in the sun, on a hot summer's day. Your arguing in a circle that zygotes are human beings because the definition of a human being applies to zygotes. So I will concede that this law more or less creates personhood, but I do not agree that a zygote is a human being, bad lawmaking aside. Meanwhile, you've tried to assert that control of naturalization lets the federal government define marriage. That's an incredible stretch, and the Supreme Court just made very clear via its ruling in Windsor that defining marriage is not a power reserved to the federal government. Because it's not. Because the Constitution doesn't grant it that power, your pretending that control of naturalization gives it that power notwithstanding. Yes. Can I get a "Well, duuhhh." No, we cannot. Seems like that should be beyond clear by now. If you're going to argue ad absurdium, I am quite prepared to start ignoring you.
It is a question. It is not a claim. Would the question "is an apple an apple?" would be fallacious assumption as well? The law of Identity (self evidence) would say it's not fallacious to argue that an apple is an apple at all. Let me ask the question another way. Do you deny that there is such a thing as "a human being in the zygote stage of life, growth and development?" We can't debate it if you won't even answer the questions. Well, as a legal reality - the laws saying they are "a human being" is enough to answer the question "are they legally a human being." Isn't it?
Only a moron would ask such a stupid question in a place where intelligent reasoning should be the norm.
To "logic of Chuz" seeks to justify his claim on the basis that "someone passed a bill that supports my claim" This is exactly the same as claiming that because Hitler made a law that claimed Jews were subhuman, that Jews truly are subhuman or, That because we had laws that said blacks were slaves that this justifies the position that "blacks should return to slavery". After all "someone made a law" Chuz has produced nothing other than this appeal to authority fallacy that supports his claim that a single human cell is the same as a living human.
Apples and Oranges. You aren't really asking us "is an apple an apple"?. You're asking us, "is an apple seed an apple?" Clearly not.
Not really. To use that as an anology, I would be asking "is a germinating apple seed an apple tree (plant)?" The answer is yes. It would be.
You are truly lost. Your statement read "do you deny that a human that is a zygote is a human" The fallacy is the assumption that a zygote is a human. Not completely ... no. What I do claim is by all the evidence I have seen a zygote is not a living human and no one has been able to show that the single human cell at conception is a living human or should qualify as a living human.
I think you are projecting. It's not a statement - it's a question. "Do you deny that a human being - while in the zygote stage of their life - is a human being?" It's not an assumption. It's a question. Thank you. Finally! How do your reconicle that with what you just said earlier - that you do "not completely" deny that there is such a thing as "a human being - in the fetal stage of life, growth & development?"
Only in the context of when the woman becomes the victim of an attack and therefore has her choice removed as to her pregnancy state, there are NO other instances in ANY other law where a fetus is considered a "person", the same as a business is considered a "person" in some circumstances. It does so for the purpose of that law, nothing else, and even that law excludes abortion. It also states that the term usage is ONLY for the purpose of that law; Now I know you want to change the law to adhere to your own opinion, but to say that the UVVA establishes the "personhood" of the fetus for anything other than this law is dishonest. No you tried to squirm your way out of the question with irrelevance. Not disputed Not at all, you seem to think that this about the overall issue, it is not .. it is about your dishonest posting of a video that alludes certain arguments in Roe that do not actually say what the video portrays them to say .. in effect it is about your obvious attempt to misrepresent the strength of your opinion. As has Roe, and yet again you need to be reminded that the UVVA wording refers only to the UVVA and nothing else. no you attempted to mislead others . .however you failed. The UVVA itself says it is limited, so your assertion that it "proves" your point is nothing but you being mislead. Apparently not just me I'm glad you think the UVVA gives you some sort of golden arrow to shoot down Roe, because when it fails the victory will be all the more sweeter.
I am not. I am only asking the question. If you can show me that a human being (organism) in the zygote stage of their life, growth and development is anything other than "a human organism?" I will give it my fullest consideration.
I can not show you a living human in the zygote stage because there is no such thing that can be shown to exist.
You can't be charged with murder for killing a business. Also, the argument that "a child in the womb is not a person because no laws say they are - YET" is as circular a line of reasoning as any you have accused me of. Isn't it? Only, when I say that a child in the womb is "a human being" under the UVVA - that is factually true. It's a legal reality and it's not cirular reasoning at all. Gotta start somehwre. Right. And it will remain that way until the law is changed. Your point? Yes and no. Under section (C) of the UVVA, the definitions of section (D) are clearly incorporated with the language and terms of other laws. "(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111 (murder), 1112(manslaughter) , and 1113 (Attempt to commit murder or manslaughter ) of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. Projecting. Good. [video=youtube;7GzXVqwYHVE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GzXVqwYHVE[/video] Even if that were the original intent of the authors of the UVVA - it would be a violation of my first amendment rights to limit my opinions on it and or to limit the use of the language of the UVVA in a petition to our elected officials for a redress of grievances. Ad hominem noted. Refuted above.
Gifted... Is there a "zygote" stage in the life cycle of a human being? Yes or no? Maybe this will help:
It is a circular as what you accuse me of .. You are saying that the UVVA establishes the personhood of a fetus in law and therefore a fetus is a person .. however it is only a person due to that law, you have yet to provide any evidence to support the assumption that a fetus is a person, in much the same way that Roe establishes the right for a woman to have an abortion and therefore it is a right. Abortion is a legal reality and according to your thinking it is not circular reasoning at all. Fine, but to say that the debate is over (even for you) is dishonest as you have not established in law that abortion is murder. and if the law is changed then you will have the right to state that the personhood of a fetus is established overall, until then you don't for which section (d) clearly states that meaning of the words used ie child, pertain only to the UVVA, and exclude abortion or "any woman with respect to her unborn child" but still true The refuge of the defeated. Do you deny that the video you posted is misrepresenting the actual words spoken? Do you deny that the video you posted is heavily edited to appear to say something it does not? Do you deny that the video you posted alludes to a certain conclusion which is different from the actual? To say yes to any of the above is dishonest. So now you admit that the video you posted was a misrepresentation of the actual argument, and where have I said that you cannot have opinions on the arguments used .. please provide evidence to support where I have done that. Where have I said you can't petition for a redress of grievances, all I want you to do is admit that the video was edited to promote a stronger case .. which in my book is misrepresenting the people involved. Note it all you like, it is still correct. Until you stand in a court of law and get Roe repealed or the abortion concessions removed from the UVVA then you have refuted nothing. BTW, you do understand that "you" can be used for a group of people and not just singularly. You - pronoun - used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/you
A seed is not a tree. It has the potential to become a tree, but it is not a tree. And with that, I've concluded that there's just way too much stupid going on in this thread for me to waste any more time on it. Unsubscribed
Darn... I was hoping you could convince me to share in your denials. This is a Child in the First Days of their Life View attachment 21728
That's better than not at all... and we had to start somewhere. You say that as if people serving time in prison for illegally killing one doesn't establish it well enough. As a legal reality, it is not circular reasoning for you (or anyone else) to declare abortions as a "legal" right - even if you only base that claim on Roe. The reason that wouldn't be "circular reasoning" is because it actually was Roe v Wade which created that "legal" reality. When we say "abortion is murder" it is an indictment of the laws which for now keep it legal. It's not a claim that it is already settled law. When vegetarians say "meat is murder" - everyone knows better than to take it as a current legal fact. But the saying "meat is murder" leaves no doubt about where the vegetarians would like to see things go. The same thing goes for the "abortion is murder" saying. I never said that the UVVA or the language of the UVVA was the end of it. And section (c) ties it to laws outside of the UVVA. And? Yes X3 In your opinion. How much do you think that opinion matters to me? I have already explained to you why the video doesn't differ significantly from the full text of the court. The Conclusions are essentially the same and the UVVA already gets us passed the point expressed by the justice and all the way to the point of conception. That comment wasn't about you. It was about what YOU interpreted the justice's and law makers words to mean. The language of the UVVA that limits the use of the definitions and such are a limitation of those who prosecute the law. They are not limits on ME and my first amendment rights to use that language in a petition to my government for a redress of my grievances. Not gonna happen - because comparing the Justice's full text to the video changes nothing for me. Especially considering that the UVVA already gets us far beyond the gestation point that the Justice was talking about. Thanks for your encouragement. Yeah. But that wasn't the context that YOU were using it in.
all of the above is nothing more than evasion and opinion, the highlighted item pertains to you reading my mind .. nice trick you have there.
You can ask all the silly questions you like. None of his will change the fact that you have no valid argument for your position. If you think being part of a life cycle chart makes every entity (including egg and sperm cause without them there would be no zygote ) on that chart a living human then you are welcome to this belief. Claiming "look its part of the life cycle chart" does not explain why a zygote should be classified as a living human. A single heart cell is part of the life cycle chart of a heart, and as stated earlier a seed is part of the life cycle chart of a raspberry. A heart cell is no a heart and a seed is not a raspberry.
I'm not trying to present an argument, Gift. I'm trying to get some answers from you. That's not my belief. I'm asked you if a zygote is one of the stages in the life cycle of a human being. You seem to have a problem with giving a yes or no answer to that. I agree. But if I can't even get you to admit that the zygote stage is part of the life cycle of a human being, how can I get you to see that it is a stage of development for a human being? Do Hearts really have life cycle charts? I digress. The life cycle chart was not presented - so as to make the claim that everything on it is "a human being." It was to see you if will even acknowledge the biological fact that the "zygote" stage is even part of it. It seems you can't (won't) even do that.
