Abortion

On another point, a zygote may have the 2 complete sets of chromosomes to form a new organism, but without a fertile female's body, it will never turn into a baby that's born.
That's a question of technology. Nonetheless, the "dependency" you reference is irrelevant.

No, it's of immense relevance. For the audience, IBDaMann conveniently snipped off the final sentence of my post. It was this:
"In that sense, it's exactly like a sperm- it requires other components in order to become a born baby."

I think it's clear that he would like to distract from the fact that the similarities between a human sperm and a human egg and a zygote are massive. For starters, a sperm and an egg are all a zygote were until they were joined. And just like the sperm and the egg, without additional material, they have no hope of ever creating a birthed human. They are simply components in a much larger picture. And no, a female's fertile womb is not just "a question of technology", and forcing her to grow a zygote to being born is nothing short of slavery.
 
If you're saying that most illegal abortions occur when a pregnant female requests an abortion from someone who isn't legally allowed to provide one in the location it's performed, sure.
Did you just add the qualifier "illegal" and render your post a waste of time?

No idea why you think adding the illegal qualifier makes my post a "waste of time". There are clearly abortions that are legal and abortions that aren't. It depends on the jurisdiction where the abortion is had as well as the stage of development the fetus is at when the abortion is had.
 
You haven't ever stated your definition of "living human."
I have, though it's quite possible that I hadn't yet done so when you wrote your statement. My definition of a living human encompasses all stages of human development, from human sperms and eggs and ends with elderly humans.
Science denial for purposes of EVASION [snip]

First, you state that I hadn't given my definition of "living human". I had, but decided to repeat it for you and instead of a "thank you", I get a statement that I decided was best snipped off after 6 words -.- As I've said before, you can and do define "living human" however you like, just like you can define any other word however you like. Don't start playing double standards where -you- can define words however you like but if anyone doesn't define a word or compound word the way you like, it's suddenly "science denial...".
 
and forcing her to grow a zygote to being born is nothing short of slavery.
If I willingly choose to drive 40mph in a 25mph "speed trap" zone that SOMETIMES has a cop sitting there, and I subsequently get pulled over for speeding and get issued a citation, am I having a citation forced upon me?

This "forcing her to grow a zygote to being born" belief of yours is akin to you believing that pregnancy arises in the very same manner as a wild Pokémon arises whenever a trainer walks through tall grass. If I had the motivation and talent to do it, I would create a meme of the Pokémon encounter screen, include a picture of a fetus where the Pokémon picture would be, and replace the game's "A wild [Pokémon name] appeared!" encounter text with the text: "A wild Fetus appeared!"
 
How is {customer who is a pregnant woman} somehow not a proper subset of {customer}?
I have no problem with this part.
Is that an answer?
It is, though it looks like I need to elaborate. You seem to have assumed that I wouldn't agree that a "customer who is a pregnant woman" is a proper subset of a customer. You've made a false assumption.
You still haven't answered the question.
Yes, I have.
What is the answer?

As anyone can see from the nested quotes, I went all the way back to your original question, way back in post #415. Your question reminds me of the prosecutor who asked a man if he'd stopped beating his wife. If he says yes, it implies he was doing it before. If he says no, it implies he's still beating her. There is no room in a yes or no answer to say "I never beat my wife!".

I had hoped that my initial answer to your question in post #547 would get you to realize that your question has a false assumption built in. Your response in post #560 suggested to me that you hadn't yet realized this, thus my elaboration on my response in post #656, wherein I pointed out your false assumption. It appears from your response in post #677 that you still didn't understand both your false assumption as well as how it makes answering your question akin to trying to answer the prosecutor asking the defendant if he'd stopped beating his wife as your statement that I "still hadn't answered your question" implied that there was a way of actually answering your question that wouldn't imply things that are false. Now, your original question posted way back in post #415 was a while ago- I saw that I had certainly -responded- to your question and so assumed that this response was an answer. I now think it's more that it was a response.

Anyway, as I just mentioned, I specified where your false assumption is back in post #556. If you formulate a question that -doesn't- have a built in fallacy, I imagine I would be able to actually answer it instead of just point out that the question itself is flawed.
 
Last edited:
No, it's of the utmost relevance. If the government wants to pay the cost of artificial fetus growers, that's certainly its perogative, but I doubt it'll happen. What I -don't- think is justified is to force women to be fetus growers.

If a pregnant female was given the choice to have the government continue to grow her fetus, I strongly suspect that many might well choose that option. It's not an option right now though. Until it is, there is only one option- either the female continues to grow the fetus, or she removes it and it dies.
Well when you smash your car into someone else's car you're responsible [snip]
Are you equating getting pregnant with smashing someone's car?
Are you denying that accepted, negative ramifications of deliberate activity can occur?

No.
 
The article isn't about abortions [snip]
Exactly. They are specifically omitted when they shouldn't be.

No, I chose that article to highlight all the deaths of children that occur -after- they are born. Note that I'm using the definition of children that you like here, the one that is at least similar to "living human". So, have you figured out why I chose to highlight those deaths?
 
Your question reminds me of the prosecutor who asked a man if he'd stopped beating his wife.
Nope. You are deliberately mischaracterizing my easy, straightforward question as a question with an embedded fallacy.

To first characterize my question as such, you need to identify said embedded fallacy, which you cannot do if you are simply EVADING.

As such, I welcome you to stop EVADING, to stop being totally dishonest, and to engage in rational discussion. Tell me, what about my question is false and not simply some math or logic that you reject?

I had hoped that my initial answer to your question in post #547 would get you to realize that your question has a false assumption built in.
You don't get to "hope" that I "realize" something. You have to state it. What is the embedded fallacy?

Your response in post #560 suggested to me that you hadn't yet realized this,
Assume, going forward, that I cannot read your mind. Assume that you are responsible for saying what you mean and for meaning what you say.

thus my elaboration on my response in post #656, wherein I pointed out your false assumption.
You did not point out any false assumption. You simply rejected math.

Anyway, as I just mentioned, I specified where your false assumption is ...
Your rejection of math and logic is not somehow a false assumption on my part.

It's about time you faced all the questions posed to you and answer them honestly, without purposes of EVASION.
 
while nothing is 100% the polio vaccine prevents polio in 99% of the people who get the vaccine.

For the audience, I've responded to Yakuda's post in a thread dedicated to vaccines. It can be seen here:
 
Back
Top