Mr anony: Lol, ridiculous because you say so? Tell me, how do you define a human being?

No because once again, I showed you how you committed the fallacy with a reference. Human being has been defined already. See the first definition here.

Mr anony:
Interesting, so a human being's right to life can be denied based solely on another person's "right" to choose to end it?

That isn't what I said.

thehomer:
No because once again, I showed you how you committed the fallacy with a reference. Human being has been defined already. See the first definition here.

Interesting. How does a new-born baby meet that definition in a way that the fetus I showed you does not?

That isn't what I said.

That's exactly the implication of "whether it is human or not is irrelevant"

Mr anony:
Interesting. How does a new-born baby meet that definition in a way that the fetus I showed you does not?

You're the harping on what a human being is.

Mr anony:
That's exactly the implication of "whether it is human or not is irrelevant"

No it isn't. Once again, you need to realize that you're the one wondering whether or not it is human not me. Keep in mind the fact that your entire argument still rests on an unresolved logical fallacy.

thehomer:
You're the harping on what a human being is.

No it isn't. Once again, you need to realize that you're the one wondering whether or not it is human not me. Keep in mind the fact that your entire argument still rests on an unresolved logical fallacy.

Lol, Yeah I forgot. It is irrelevant to you whether it is human or not.Yet you have been arguing with me over whether it is human or not and whether it's rights weigh more than the mother.


Continue dancing my friend. Just keep dancing.

Mr anony:
Lol, Yeah I forgot. It is irrelevant to you whether it is human or not.Yet you have been arguing with me over whether it is human or not and whether it's rights weigh more than the mother.


Continue dancing my friend. Just keep dancing.

I wasn't arguing with you on whether or not it is human, once again, you were the one who introduced that as your defining factor and tried to back it up using a text-book case of a logical fallacy.

I've already addressed my point of view about the rights with respect to the mother. It is up to you (as it has been for a pretty long time now) to make a non-fallacious argument for your point of view.

.

thehomer:

I wasn't arguing with you on whether or not it is human, once again, you were the one who introduced that as your defining factor and tried to back it up using a text-book case of a logical fallacy.

I've already addressed my point of view about the rights with respect to the mother. It is up to you (as it has been for a pretty long time now) to make a non-fallacious argument for your point of view.

If I hear you correctly, you grant that the fetus is human yet you think that the mother's right to choose justifies her killing another human? Tell me how that works.

Mr anony:
If I hear you correctly, you grant that the fetus is human yet you think that the mother's right to choose justifies her killing another human? Tell me how that works.

You're so desperate to avoid your own argument that you're trying to shift it to me. I'll just repeat myself by telling you again that you were the one whose entire argument hinged on a fallacious line of reasoning about the foetus being human.


You can try to resolve that fallacy or pick another line of argument. The choice remains yours.

thehomer:

You're so desperate to avoid your own argument that you're trying to shift it to me. I'll just repeat myself by telling you again that you were the one whose entire argument hinged on a fallacious line of reasoning about the foetus being human.


You can try to resolve that fallacy or pick another line of argument. The choice remains yours.

I have shown you that it is not a fallacy. Shouting "fallacy" until you are blue in the face won't make it fallacious. Keep dancing. I didn't fail to notice that you avoided my question.

Mr anony:
I have shown you that it is not a fallacy. Shouting "fallacy" until you are blue in the face won't make it fallacious. Keep dancing. I didn't fail to notice that you avoided my question.

You never showed that it wasn't a fallacy and as I demonstrated previously with the help of that reference link, I didn't simply shout "fallacy" I showed you why it was a fallacy. Those posts of mine are still up if you would like to review them. In fact, you've claimed before that I merely said it was a fallacy when I in fact showed you why it was a fallacy.

I didn't avoid your question, I simply pointed out to you once again that you were the one making the argument that hinged on the foetus being human not me. And you made that argument based on a logical fallacy you're yet to rectify.

jayriginal:

Ah,so "murder" can be justified afterall. Or did I read that wrong? Lets see.

Can you differentiate between murder and killing?

thehomer:

Those 11 million people we can all agree were human beings capable of living independently of their mothers but the 53 million weren't. Add to that number those that are aborted spontaneously by or with your God's permission. That number is even more than 53 million over the same period and location of assessment.

When do you think life begins in the womb if you can draw the line?

How do you define human life?

thehomer:

You never showed that it wasn't a fallacy and as I demonstrated previously with the help of that reference link, I didn't simply shout "fallacy" I showed you why it was a fallacy. Those posts of mine are still up if you would like to review them. In fact, you've claimed before that I merely said it was a fallacy when I in fact showed you why it was a fallacy.

I didn't avoid your question, I simply pointed out to you once again that you were the one making the argument that hinged on the foetus being human not me. And you made that argument based on a logical fallacy you're yet to rectify.

Lol, I explained to you exactly why it isn't a fallacy. I'll do it again for the last time:

A human being is an "either or" kind of entity. i.e. It is either a human being or it is not. There is no such thing as "becoming a human being" or "half a human being". If you were to saw a human being in half, he/she wouldn't become half a human being or two people, it will still be one human being. Even if you were to change every single cell in a human being's body (as we see when babies grow into adults) it does not become a different human being.
So my friend, contrary to your baldness example where there is actually a slope of hairiness ranging from less to more hair, there is no slope of humanness ranging from "less to more human" therefore your slippery slope accusation simply doesn't apply here.

I would have been interested in what you would render as the correct definition of a human being since you keep harping on about this "fallacious definitions" but I notice that as usual, you're unable to actually present your own view and defend it. You just prefer to chuck out pointless diversion. A tactic that you and others in your shoes have accused me of without showing evidence for your accusations. Your attempts are just so obvious its embarrassing.


your own words describe you to the T

Mr anony:
Lol, I explained to you exactly why it isn't a fallacy. I'll do it again for the last time:

This is so ridiculous. It appears that you even find it difficult to understand the information from the reference source I presented.

Mr anony:
A human being is an "either or" kind of entity. i.e. It is either a human being or it is not. There is no such thing as "becoming a human being" or "half a human being". If you were to saw a human being in half, he/she wouldn't become half a human being or two people, it will still be one human being. Even if you were to change every single cell in a human being's body (as we see when babies grow into adults) it does not become a different human being.

Baldness is an "either or" kind of entity. i.e one is either bald or is not. There is no such thing as "becoming bald" or "half bald". If you were to saw a human head in half, he/she won't become half bald or two bald people. It will still be one bald person. etc. Do you really not see your text book fallacy?

Mr anony:
So my friend, contrary to your baldness example where there is actually a slope of hairiness ranging from less to more hair, there is no slope of humanness ranging from "less to more human" therefore your slippery slope accusation simply doesn't apply here.

Whatever you think a human is, can you be a human without a brain?

Mr anony:
I would have been interested in what you would render as the correct definition of a human being since you keep harping on about this "fallacious definitions" but I notice that as usual, you're unable to actually present your own view and defend it. You just prefer to chuck out pointless diversion. A tactic that you and others in your shoes have accused me of without showing evidence for your accusations. Your attempts are just so obvious its embarrassing.


your own words describe you to the T

Once again, you're trying to shift your own burden to me. You're the one basing your argument on what it means to be human, I'm not. So if you can demonstrate your point without committing a text book example of a logical fallacy, then please do that.

OLAADEGBU:

When do you think life begins in the womb if you can draw the line?

You do realize that both the sperm and the egg are alive.

thehomer:

You do realize that both the sperm and the egg are alive.

When does conception begin?

OLAADEGBU:

When does conception begin?

After fertilization.

thehomer:

After fertilization.

Then life begins at fertilisation and all human life is precious and made in the image of God.

OLAADEGBU:

Then life begins at fertilisation and all human life is precious and made in the image of God.

As I mentioned before, both the sperm and the egg are alive.

Do the rights of a woman cease upon pregnancy?

Paschal007: In a situation where the baby has to be aborted to save the mother's life due to one complication or the other, is it right? Is it still murder?

i'll say NOO

Ubenedictus: i'll say NOO

Why would you say that? Especially when you believe the foetus has a right to life?

thehomer:

As I mentioned before, both the sperm and the egg are alive.

Who said they are not alive? What we are saying is that human life begins at fertilization, do you get the difference?

Kay 17:

Do the rights of a woman cease upon pregnancy?

Both the mother and the child have equal rights to live, don't you think?

Kay 17:

Why would you say that? Especially when you believe the foetus has a right to life?

This may be necessary due to extreme conditions where a decision has to be made between the mother or the child, e.g. ectopic pregnancy. In this case it is trying to safe a life or two, instead of forcing death on one or both of them.

Kay 17:

Why would you say that? Especially when you believe the foetus has a right to life?

the foetus has a right to life so does the mother, if the unborn child physically and seriously puts the life of the mother at risk then he/she may be born prematurely even though that may put the life of the baby in danger.

Would an abortion in this case have been wrong?

AP:
SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador (AP) — A seriously ill woman denied a medical abortion has had a successful cesarean section to deliver a baby that doctors have given little chance of surviving, El Salvador's Health Ministry announced late Monday.
The 22-year-old woman, known only as Beatriz for privacy reasons, underwent the operation in the afternoon after 27 weeks of pregnancy, the ministry said. Her baby girl was born without a brain.
"No one can say how long she will live," Morena Herrera of the Feminist Collective for Local Development told The Associated Press. "It was painful to see the little creature. That's what the grandmother told us, and the doctors confirmed it."
The country's Supreme Court last week prohibited an abortion for Beatriz, who suffers from lupus and kidney failure and whose lawyers said the pregnancy was threatening her life. Her plight drew international attention and a ruling from the Inter-American Court on Human Rights that El Salvador should protect her life and help her end the pregnancy.
The Health Ministry stepped in late last week after the ruling and said it would allow the C-section because the pregnancy was already at 26 weeks and the country's strict abortion laws were no longer at play. Ultrasound images had indicated her fetus was developing with only a brain stem.
The Health Ministry can determine what is most medically sound for a mother versus the unborn baby and was lauded internationally for working to save the woman's life.
Doctors at the Maternity Hospital had been preparing to perform the C-section at the slightest danger signs to save Beatriz's life, said Maria Isabel Rodriguez of the health ministry.
The woman was recovering under the close watch of doctors late Monday.
El Salvador's laws prohibit all abortions, even when a woman's health is at risk. Beatriz and any doctor who terminated her pregnancy would have faced arrest and criminal charges.
A majority of judges on the high court rejected the appeal by Beatriz's lawyers, saying physical and psychological exams by the government-run Institute of Legal Medicine found that her diseases were under control and that she could continue the pregnancy.
Just as the Health Ministry was resolving the case, the Inter-American Court issued its ruling, but it no longer applied in the case.
Abortion opponents said the case was being used to press for legalized abortion in El Salvador, which has some of the toughest abortion laws in Latin America, along with Chile, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua and Suriname.

thehomer:

Would an abortion in this case have been wrong?

Do lawyers now decide whether a woman's life is in danger or the doctors? What's even the percentage of cases like this in El Salvador?

Ubenedictus: the foetus has a right to life so does the mother, if the unborn child physically and seriously puts the life of the mother at risk then he/she may be born prematurely even though that may put the life of the baby in danger.

Note that as an extension of the mother's right to life, she is automatically entitled to all forms of medical procedures that preserve her life. Abortion is one of it.

That would include both mental and physical health. If a woman is stressed to her limits, she is entitled to abort, to preserve her life.

A foetus on the other hand, cannot be born if it is not viable, and the woman has a right stemming from hers to live, to choose what medical prodecure is the safest for her.

OLAADEGBU:

Do lawyers now decide whether a woman's life is in danger or the doctors? What's even the percentage of cases like this in El Salvador?

Every woman's life is precious.

thehomer:

Every woman's life is precious.

And so is the life of the baby.