tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6387757235421993128.post8167351912891940960..comments2023-12-27T23:42:45.680-05:00Comments on The Abortioneers: Let's Watch a Videoplacenta sandwichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14729355361057625131noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6387757235421993128.post-20681641631180312992010-08-11T22:28:31.146-04:002010-08-11T22:28:31.146-04:00It's so funny that consequentialism as a syste...It's so funny that consequentialism as a system of ethical reasoning is not really considered as valid outside of academia. For me, it's really that simple.N/Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10565857042177507391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6387757235421993128.post-79888703795327710542010-08-08T18:03:01.548-04:002010-08-08T18:03:01.548-04:00The thing is, antis try to play logical gotcha wit...The thing is, antis try to play logical gotcha with definitions, and feel very smart when no one calls them on it. They play on the words "living" and "human" to make it sound like your position can't possibly be 'true,' but of course they are twisting it, like so: <br /><br />1. HUMAN: "If it's not a human, what else is it? A dog? A tree? That's absurd. Clearly it's human." They know full well that no one's denying the DNA of a zygote, embryo or fetus is *human*, they are just taking advantage people's tendency to say "a human being" to refer to "a PERSON" -- which aren't the same thing at all. <br /><br />2. LIVING: "Well, it's certainly not dead, is it? Did you know the 7 characteristics of 'life' are growth, reproduction, cells, metabolism, evolution (did you notice that?!), response to environment, and homeostasis? A fertilized egg meets all those criteria!" Actually, that is the cellular/organismal definition of living vs. nonliving (e.g. petroleum, paper) and has nothing to do with the *moral* definition of life, which they also know full well. Here again, they are trying to take advantage of the popular conflation of the meaning of "alive" with, you know, having rights or conscience or feeling or personhood. There's NOTHING linking all those things, from a scientific point of view, but they still try to use science to prove this non-scientific point of theirs. It's really annoying. Argue what you actually care about, and stop lying using principles you don't understand and don't give a shit about.placenta sandwichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14729355361057625131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6387757235421993128.post-32109889703236956612010-08-08T14:20:14.264-04:002010-08-08T14:20:14.264-04:00Oh, it's Ana. I've made two video response...Oh, it's Ana. I've made two video responses to videos on her YouTube channel. I wasn't so much trying to educate her though. It was obvious from our exchange in comments section that she wasn't interested in being corrected. What got to me, and the reason I made the response, was because flimsy as her arguments were, they were entirely typical anti-choice rhetoric. I can't leave that unchallenged. <br />I'm happy to see that others have taken notice of Ana's nonsense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6387757235421993128.post-11511244205314537372010-08-08T12:46:17.664-04:002010-08-08T12:46:17.664-04:00I also think her arguments on the newborn and the ...I also think her arguments on the newborn and the 40-year old are flawed because a major argument for abortion is about viability. A 40-year old and a newborn are viable beings, who are supporting themselves. <br /><br />A fetus is not viable until it's delivered. In the womb its ability to live and exist depends on the woman - it cannot support itself while still in the womb.<br /><br />While yes, a fetus has the genetic traits for being a human, and it's certainly of the human species, it's not a VIABLE human.revolutionary vaginahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13086052333185391602noreply@blogger.com