In response to:

What's Good for the Noose is Good for the Pander

Anominus Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 6:05 PM
HoG: It is impossible to engage in an honest debate with someone who questions the definition of "is," as you do. You are willfully avoiding the facts in order to create a facetious argument. Personhood has no observable, factual basis, and therefore cannot be used to determine the beginning of a human being. Science proves that a human being is created at the point of conception. According to the foundational belief that "all men are created equal," this is the sole point when all men must receive the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the truth, and you have provided no evidence with which to dispute it.
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 2:14 PM
"Personhood has no observable, factual basis, and therefore cannot be used to determine the beginning of a human being."

"Science proves that a human being is created at the point of conception."

Err, is not 'personhood' just another name for 'Human Being'?

Anominus Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 1:36 PM
"Personhood" in this instance is used as the point when a human being is invested with the inalienable rights.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 6:13 PM
I'm not questioning the definition of "is." I'm questioning the logic behind your assumptions. You call them facts, but the mere presence of the abortion debate indicate that we're not dealing in facts. We're dealing in what people believe are informed conclusions. And I've noticed that both sides, pro-life and pro-choice, have inconsistent logic behind their conclusions. Science doesn't prove that a 'human being' is created at conception. It only proves that two gamete cells merge to create a full set of chromosomes. How is that a 'human being?' It sounds to me that you're going from a to z while ignoring the rest of the alphabet. Just assuming it's the truth doesn't make it so.
Anominus Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 1:19 PM
"I'm questioning the logic behind your assumptions."

Actually, you are "questioning" the scientific standard for determining what something is - DNA. Taxonomy is just a method of classifying what group a species may belong in, but the DNA still determines the species.

"You call them facts, but the mere presence of the abortion debate indicate that we're not dealing in facts."

Just because you disagree with the facts and refuse to accept them doesn't make them any less factual.

"It only proves that two gamete cells merge to create a full set of chromosomes. How is that a 'human being?'"

Once again, if it is both human and alive, there is no other option than considering it to be a "human being / person."
ScienceOrMagic Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 11:50 PM
A piece of human liver is both human and alive, does that satisfy your definition of a human being?
Anominus Wrote: Nov 20, 2012 10:11 AM
A piece of liver is not a living organism on its own, so no, it doesn't meet the definition of a human being.

Recently, Ann Coulter wrote a controversial column suggesting that numerous Republican losses in the 2012 election cycle could be tied to the GOP stance on abortion. After lamenting the problem, she suggested a solution: the GOP should officially abandon its opposition to the so-called rape exception to a ban on abortion.

Ann's position on this matter is wrong for three reasons. First, it is unprincipled. Second, it will not be received with the popular support she envisions. Third, it is not the best political response to the problem. After elaborating on each problem associated with Ann's position, I propose an...

Tuesday, May 21 | 04:46 PM ET
Tuesday, May 21 | 04:46 PM ET
Tuesday, May 21 | 04:46 PM ET
Tuesday, May 21 | 04:46 PM ET