Bronx Zoo Elephant Not a Person Court Rules

[Eightcrackers]

Chemotherapy involves on one person. Not the same with abortion. Chemotherapy is an attempt to save a life. Not the same with abortion.

Irrelevant, to me.

Some pregnant women need their pregnancies to be "treated", and their opinion is what counts.

 

[Nedsk]

Irrelevant, to me.

Some pregnant women need their pregnancies to be "treated", and their opinion is what counts.

Need and opinion arent the same thing. If I break my leg my need to have it set is not influenced by my opinion. And again if it was just the woman and she wanted to smash her face into a stone wall im all for it. she wants to kill for convenience? hell no

 

[Nedsk]

Irrelevant, to me.

Some pregnant women need their pregnancies to be "treated", and their opinion is what counts.

So a question for you. You said yesterday that while you could not think of a good reason why slavery would be moral, you couldnt rule out the possibility that someone could have good reason thereby making slavery moral. Isnt that correct?

If so could you conceive of a reason that would killing an innocent moral? Do you believe someone else could?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

I don't agree that abortion is bad.

Yeah, I know. Given this, I do not see how you think anything is bad.

You want zero abortions because you think that abortion is bad.

I want zero abortions because it is bad to murder an innocent human being.

I want zero abortions because I would prefer that the pregnancy never happen in the first place.

And that is fine. Who says women have to get pregnant?

Because them being zero means that they would not be necessary.

And if women do not get pregnant, they won't be necessary.

Don't want children? Don't make babies!

This ain't rocket science!

 

[Eightcrackers]

So a question for you. You said yesterday that while you could not think of a good reason why slavery would be moral, you couldnt rule out the possibility that someone could have good reason thereby making slavery moral. Isnt that correct?

Yes.

If so could you conceive of a reason that would killing an innocent moral? Do you believe someone else could?

There is a difference between "I cannot conceive of a reason" and "I declare that there could be no reason".

 

[Eightcrackers]

And that is fine. Who says women have to get pregnant?

Nobody.

But you are only considering things that prevent a woman from getting pregnant.
I consider things that prevent her from being pregnant.

And if women do not get pregnant, they won't be necessary.

Agree.

Big "if".

Don't want children? Don't make babies!

Utterly useless advice to somebody that's already pregnant.

"Don't want to hit an iceberg? Slow down!"

- you, to the crew of the already-sinking Titanic.

Address what's actually happening, not what's already happened.

 

[Nedsk]

Yes.

There is a difference between "I cannot conceive of a reason" and "I declare that there could be no reason".

So is it ever moral to kill an innocent person? Do you believe someone could justify killing an innocent person?

 

[Nedsk]

Nobody.

But you are only considering things that prevent a woman from getting pregnant.
I consider things that prevent her from being pregnant.

Agree.

Big "if".

Utterly useless advice to somebody that's already pregnant.

"Don't want to hit an iceberg? Slow down!"

- you, to the crew of the already-sinking Titanic.

Address what's actually happening, not what's already happened

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Address what's actually happening, not what's already happened.

Address the pregnancy all you want. Do it without murdering the child. And that is the whole problem: there is no way currently to "terminate" a pregnancy without murdering the child.

You know what that means? It means that until such time as a pregnancy can be "terminated" without murdering the child, pregnant women need to accept the fact that they are pregnant and bring the child to term.

As I have continued to say: we do not get to murder people because they are an inconvenience.

I do not literally believe you would do what I write below. I am simply trying to illustrate where your logic leads.

Your solution after Titanic hit the iceberg would be to start throwing anyone overboard who was in your way and causing an inconvenience to you. When confronted you would indignantly reply: "I am exercising my freedom of choice! How dare you tell me that what I am doing is wrong It's my life and my body! These people are in my way! Now you get out of my way or you are next!"

 

[Nedsk]

Address the pregnancy all you want. Do it without murdering the child. And that is the whole problem: there is no way currently to "terminate" a pregnancy without murdering the child.

You know what that means? It means that until such time as a pregnancy can be "terminated" without murdering the child, pregnant women need to accept the fact that they are pregnant and bring the child to term.

As I have continued to say: we do not get to murder people because they are an inconvenience.

I do not literally believe you would do what I write below. I am simply trying to illustrate where your logic leads.

Your solution after Titanic hit the iceberg would be to start throwing anyone overboard who was in your way and causing an inconvenience to you. When confronted you would indignantly reply: "I am exercising my freedom of choice! How dare you tell me that what I am doing is wrong It's my life and my body! These people are in my way! Now you get out of my way or you are next!"

Great analogy

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Irrelevant, to me.

Some pregnant women need their pregnancies to be "treated", and their opinion is what counts.

Need to "treat" the pregnancy?

Is pregnancy a disease?

Is an unborn child---what---a cancer? A virus? A bacteria? Wait--I know what you will say it is: it is a leech, it is a parasite that needs to be eradicated, right----I mean----if it is to the woman that is. Her opinion of what her child is--is all that matters right? So if it is a parasite, a disease to the woman, than that is what it is. On the other hand, if it is a child to the woman, than that is what it is right?

Now here is a question for Eightcraker, Eightcraker and Thirdname: if women get to arbitrarily and whimsically declare what their offspring are, based on nothing but their personal whims, should the equal protections clause of the Constitution grant me the same right to do that to anyone I want? Can I arbitrarily and whimsically declare who is and is not a person based on my personal convenience too?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Need to "treat" the pregnancy?

Is pregnancy a disease?

Is an unborn child---what---a cancer? A virus? A bacteria? Wait--

This is just facetious. Some pregnant women do need their pregnancies to be "treated" (note the inverted commas). That neither means, implies or suggests that it is a disease, a cancer, a virus or a bacteria.

I know what you will say it is: it is a leech, it is a parasite that needs to be eradicated, right----I mean----if it is to the woman that is. Her opinion of what her child is--is all that matters right? So if it is a parasite, a disease to the woman, than that is what it is. On the other hand, if it is a child to the woman, than that is what it is right?

Biologically, the fetus is a parasite. That is simply fact. It says nothing at all about whether the fetus can, should, might or would be aborted. "The fetus is a parasite, therefore should be aborted" makes no sense; b does not follow from a. The fact that the fetus is a parasite is irrelevant to any discussion on the morality of abortion.

Now here is a question for Eightcraker, Eightcraker and Thirdname: if women get to arbitrarily and whimsically declare what their offspring are, based on nothing but their personal whims,

They don't and nobody suggested they do.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

This is just facetious. Some pregnant women do need their pregnancies to be "treated" (note the inverted commas). That neither means, implies or suggests that it is a disease, a cancer, a virus or a bacteria.

If a pregnancy is not a disease, a bacteria, a virus, a cancer, why does it need to be "treated?"

Words mean things sir. When a pregnancy is talked about in terms of "treatment," if abortion is seen as "treatment" it is far easier to justify--since you get "treatment" when things are going wrong in your body, not when things are going right. You do not go the doctor when all is well with the body, save a check-up.

Calling abortion "treatment" predisposes people to think of pregnancy in terms of disease. And if pregnancy is seen as a disease, the abortion is the cure. If abortion is the cure, then it becomes easier to justify.

biologically, the fetus is a parasite. That is simply fact. It says nothing at all about whether the fetus can, should, might or would be aborted. "The fetus is a parasite, therefore should be aborted"

Actually it makes perfect sense. If the fetus is seen as a parasite, rather than a child, then abortion becomes far easier to justify. Words mean things. You know full well that the word "parasite" has negative connotations.

makes no sense; b does not follow from a. The fact that the fetus is a parasite is irrelevant to any discussion on the morality of abortion.

No, sir, you see, it is decidedly relevant.

Again, sir, words mean things. If we think of fetuses as parasites it is no surprise why we treat them as such. Does anyone have moral qualms with removing parasites from their body? No. If on the other hand we think of a fetus as a child, that could give some pause as to whether abortion on demand should be allowed.

So do not tell me that a fetus is a parasite because this is a scientific fact, and act like there is no connection between what we call a fetus and they way they are treated. Words mean things, and you that full well.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

If a pregnancy is not a disease, a bacteria, a virus, a cancer, why does it need to be "treated?"

Below is a section of the definitions of the word 'treat'. Note that only two of them (7 a and b) reference anything to do with medicine or medical aid. And even 7(a) covers abortion because (of course) women need medical aid to get one.

Now you know why (in some cases) it needs to be 'treated' despite its not being a disease, a bacteria, a virus or a cancer.

treated
treat (trēt)
v. treat·ed, treat·ing, treats
v.tr.
1. To act or behave in a specified manner toward: treated me fairly.
2. To regard and handle in a certain way. Often used with as: treated the matter as a joke.
3. To deal with in writing or speech; discuss: a book that treats all aspects of health care.
4. To deal with or represent artistically in a specified manner or style: treats the subject poetically.
5. a. To provide with food, entertainment, or gifts at one's own expense: treated her sister to the theater.
b. To give (someone or oneself) something pleasurable: treated herself to a day in the country.
6. To subject to a process, action, or change, especially to a chemical or physical process or application: treated the cloth with bleach.
7. a. To give medical aid to (someone): treated many patients in the emergency room.
b. To give medical aid to counteract (a disease or condition): treated malaria with quinine.

Words mean things sir.

Yes, they do. See above. Sadly in this case they do not mean what you want them to.

When a pregnancy is talked about in terms of "treatment," if abortion is seen as "treatment" it is far easier to justify--since you get "treatment" when things are going wrong in your body, not when things are going right. You do not go the doctor when all is well with the body, save a check-up.

Sorry, but what you imagine is implied by use of a valid word holds no weight at all. Abortion is a treatment of a pregnancy.

Calling abortion "treatment" predisposes people to think of pregnancy in terms of disease. And if pregnancy is seen as a disease, the abortion is the cure. If abortion is the cure, then it becomes easier to justify.

I have never encountered or heard of anybody who thinks of pregnancy as a disease or in terms of disease. That is a complete fabrication.

Actually it makes perfect sense. If the fetus is seen as a parasite, rather than a child, then abortion becomes far easier to justify. Words mean things. You know full well that the word "parasite" has negative connotations.

Again, it is correct. Its connotations don't mean it cannot be used to actually describe something.

No, sir, you see, it is decidedly relevant.
Again, sir, words mean things. If we think of fetuses as parasites it is no surprise why we treat them as such. Does anyone have moral qualms with removing parasites from their body? No. If on the other hand we think of a fetus as a child, that could give some pause as to whether abortion on demand should be allowed.

So we should deny scientific fact because you think it has negative connotations? I'm sorry, but that's not how it works.

So do not tell me that a fetus is a parasite because this is a scientific fact, and act like there is no connection between what we call a fetus and they way they are treated. Words mean things, and you that full well.

I will tell you and anybody that the fetus is a parasite, because it is a scientific fact. I know of no connection whatsoever between noting that fact and the likelihood, morality, efficacy or acceptability of abortion.

You keep stating that words mean things - but it seems you're not interested in what they mean. All you're interested in is what connotations you think they have. It seems to be a common trait - pro-lifers are opposed to all sorts of accurate terms, like zygote, and blastocyte, and fetus, and embryo...you want to use 'baby' instead, which is far less accurate and - of course - has all sorts of connotations, which is why you use it.

 

[mikeT]

Chemotherapy involves on one person. Not the same with abortion. Chemotherapy is an attempt to save a life. Not the same with abortion.

Abortion definitely can be an attempt to save the life of the mother.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

It's funny that they think they have to argue for personhood for an elephant as if only with such a designation could we expect elephants to be tested humanely. This is what happens when God is ripped from the landscape. Both humans and elephants are creations of God both deserving of respect and humane treatment. But neither of them are thought of as Gods creations anymore so "person hood" has replaced God.

Bronx Zoo?

They kidnapped Ota Benga a pygmy for Africa and caged him to display Darwinism. Tortured him. Tormented him. He committed suicide.

Some preachers tried to get him released.

Caged with an orangutan and put on display in New York: How 23-year-old pygmy Ota Benga was taken from the Congo, billed as 'the missing link' and humiliated before thousands​

Century after Ota Benga, Darwinista White supremacists Evos still have not changed

Interesting If Chuck Puppets claim to be related to primates, I am sure we have one here serious enough to volunteer to live in a zoo.

forums.carm.org

 

[BMS]

This is just facetious. Some pregnant women do need their pregnancies to be "treated" (note the inverted commas). That neither means, implies or suggests that it is a disease, a cancer, a virus or a bacteria.


Biologically, the fetus is a parasite. That is simply fact. It says nothing at all about whether the fetus can, should, might or would be aborted. "The fetus is a parasite, therefore should be aborted" makes no sense; b does not follow from a. The fact that the fetus is a parasite is irrelevant to any discussion on the morality of abortion.


They don't and nobody suggested they do.

This is just confused nonsense outside of reality

 

[BMS]

Abortion definitely can be an attempt to save the life of the mother.

Ah yes, and equally with pro-choice if the mother's life is not in danger abortion is an attempt to kill the offspring.

 

[BMS]

Below is a section of the definitions of the word 'treat'. Note that only two of them (7 a and b) reference anything to do with medicine or medical aid. And even 7(a) covers abortion because (of course) women need medical aid to get one.

Now you know why (in some cases) it needs to be 'treated' despite its not being a disease, a bacteria, a virus or a cancer.

treated
treat (trēt)
v. treat·ed, treat·ing, treats
v.tr.
1. To act or behave in a specified manner toward: treated me fairly.
2. To regard and handle in a certain way. Often used with as: treated the matter as a joke.
3. To deal with in writing or speech; discuss: a book that treats all aspects of health care.
4. To deal with or represent artistically in a specified manner or style: treats the subject poetically.
5. a. To provide with food, entertainment, or gifts at one's own expense: treated her sister to the theater.
b. To give (someone or oneself) something pleasurable: treated herself to a day in the country.
6. To subject to a process, action, or change, especially to a chemical or physical process or application: treated the cloth with bleach.
7. a. To give medical aid to (someone): treated many patients in the emergency room.
b. To give medical aid to counteract (a disease or condition): treated malaria with quinine.


Yes, they do. See above. Sadly in this case they do not mean what you want them to.


Sorry, but what you imagine is implied by use of a valid word holds no weight at all. Abortion is a treatment of a pregnancy.


I have never encountered or heard of anybody who thinks of pregnancy as a disease or in terms of disease. That is a complete fabrication.


Again, it is correct. Its connotations don't mean it cannot be used to actually describe something.


So we should deny scientific fact because you think it has negative connotations? I'm sorry, but that's not how it works.


I will tell you and anybody that the fetus is a parasite, because it is a scientific fact. I know of no connection whatsoever between noting that fact and the likelihood, morality, efficacy or acceptability of abortion.

You keep stating that words mean things - but it seems you're not interested in what they mean. All you're interested in is what connotations you think they have. It seems to be a common trait - pro-lifers are opposed to all sorts of accurate terms, like zygote, and blastocyte, and fetus, and embryo...you want to use 'baby' instead, which is far less accurate and - of course - has all sorts of connotations, which is why you use it.

Confused nonsense

 

[Nedsk]

Abortion definitely can be an attempt to save the life of the mother.

Granted. What percentage of abortions performed annually are done for that purpose?