who supports right to choose

[marjon9 6]

Yup, that's what I thought you would say. In fact, I almost posted before you did that I'm quite positive you wouldn't take me up on the challenge. I know why, too. And it's not because you don't get the point or it's not your job.

Anyone else want to take the time-travel challenge?

What in the world are you talking about. I have no idea. If you want to put aside the sarcasm and meanness and actually present an idea or a question I'd be happy to respond. I'm really not in the mood to play time machine games but if you have an actual issue you'd like to discuss please let me know.

[gadgetlady 4]

What in the world are you talking about. I have no idea. If you want to put aside the sarcasm and meanness and actually present an idea or a question I'd be happy to respond. I'm really not in the mood to play time machine games but if you have an actual issue you'd like to discuss please let me know.

The time travel challenge is: Pretend you are climbing into a time travel machine. You go back to the time to America when slavery was legal. The slave owner you run into fully believes blacks are only 3/5 of a person. Convince him otherwise. You can't use the "everybody knows" argument because everybody in his time doesn't know. What evidence will you use to convince him? What scientific facts will you use to support your claim? You can use scientific facts from 2007, if you'd like, but not "in the future we all know", or "in the future it is outlawed for good reason". Give him the reasons.

It's not a silly game. The actual issue, of course, is what criterion (other than "everyone knows") we use to define human beings. The answer will inform the question of when life begins. Which is why, of course, I don't think anyone on the pro-abortion side will answer.

[marjon9 6]

The time travel challenge is: Pretend you are climbing into a time travel machine. You go back to the time to America when slavery was legal. The slave owner you run into fully believes blacks are only 3/5 of a person. Convince him otherwise. You can't use the "everybody knows" argument because everybody in his time doesn't know. What evidence will you use to convince him? What scientific facts will you use to support your claim? You can use scientific facts from 2007, if you'd like, but not "in the future we all know", or "in the future it is outlawed for good reason". Give him the reasons.

It's not a silly game. The actual issue, of course, is what criterion (other than "everyone knows") we use to define human beings. The answer will inform the question of when life begins. Which is why, of course, I don't think anyone on the pro-abortion side will answer.

Whatever a human being may be, a dividing embryo consisting of 4 cells that is currently residing inside another person is not necessarily a human being to me. It may be, it may not be, I'm not really sure. But in my view, this is really a matter of conscience and not a matter of science. There is no definitive "proof" that could be possible on this issue one way or another. We all have the facts about what an embryo is and what a fetus is. When some people look at these facts they see a human being. Other people do not. There is no final correct answer.

You seem to be looking for some sort of "gotcha" moment here, where the answer to the time machine game "proves" that you are right in some way. But I don't get it at all. I'd be interested in hearing your point if you'd like to share it.

I see real differences between an living, breathing, independently viable African American person and a dividing embryo consisting of 4 cells that is residing inside the body of another person. If you don't see any differences, well, you have the right to that opinion.

[gadgetlady 4]

Whatever a human being may be, a dividing embryo consisting of 4 cells that is currently residing inside another person is not necessarily a human being to me. It may be, it may not be, I'm not really sure. But in my view, this is really a matter of conscience and not a matter of science. There is no definitive "proof" that could be possible on this issue one way or another. We all have the facts about what an embryo is and what a fetus is. When some people look at these facts they see a human being. Other people do not. There is no final correct answer.

Yeah, that's what the slave owners said.

I see real differences between an living, breathing, independently viable African American person and a dividing embryo consisting of 4 cells that is residing inside the body of another person. If you don't see any differences, well, you have the right to that opinion.

Despite your refusal to answer, you do finally answer. The difference, and the only difference in your mind, between a black person and an unborn baby is that the unborn baby resides in the body of another person? So it is simply the journey through the birth canal that bestows life?

[396power 2]

Gosh, I sure agree with you. There is nothing I hate worse than people killing other people for their own convenience. That is just about the worst thing anyone can do.

Fortunately, aborting a dividing embryo is not killing a human being. If it were, abortion would be a really bad thing.

You are always asking Gadget to prove her point. So now that you have made this BOLD statement, you prove it. Why is it not a human being?

[marjon9 6]

Yeah, that's what the slave owners said.

Despite your refusal to answer, you do finally answer. The difference, and the only difference in your mind, between a black person and an unborn baby is that the unborn baby resides in the body of another person? So it is simply the journey through the birth canal that bestows life?

To me, there are differences between any person, black or otherwise, and a dividing embryo consisting of 4 cells that resides inside another person. And those differences go beyond whether the embryo is "inside another person." The "4 cells" part, and total lack of viability, etc. also play into the picture.

I understand that you cannot understand how anyone could look at those 4 cells and not see a human being. I fully understand that this is your point of view. I respect that opinion. But it's not mine. I don't see a human being. Why are you unable to respect that?

Just to play your game a little bit, I would explain to the slave owner that an African American is a human being because human beings have language skills unlike any other animal, human beings have highly developed imagination that can be used to create practical things like buildings as well as art, etc.

I think it would be fair to say that a dividing embryo with 4 cells that is living inside another person does not have any of those characteristics. It may some day, just like it may some day develop into a human being. But I do not believe that it is a human being now.

There is no game that is going to change any of this. We still disagree in just exactly the same ways about the same things. I understand and respect your point of view. You cannot do the same. I think I'm the winner here.

[lisah25 3]

Just to play your game a little bit, I would explain to the slave owner that an African American is a human being because human beings have language skills unlike any other animal, human beings have highly developed imagination that can be used to create practical things like buildings as well as art, etc.

I thought it was an interesting question being asked. I would do similar. I'd also ask what the slave owner saw as differences between the African Americans and other humans of other races. Talk about any they came up with.

[marjon9 6]

You are always asking Gadget to prove her point. So now that you have made this BOLD statement, you prove it. Why is it not a human being?

I don't think that this is something that is capable of proof. I think that this is a question of conscience, not science. We all see the same facts. We all know what stages a fetus goes through, etc. When you look at these facts, you see that a dividing embryo with 4 cells is a human being. You can't imagine how anyone could see it any other way. I understand your point of view and respect it. But I disagree with it. When I look at a dividing embryo with 4 cells, residing inside another person, I do not see a human being. I see something that may or may not eventually become a human being.

But each person is entitled to their own opinion. I don't feel any need to change anyone's view to agree with me. But I certainly can't "prove" to you that this is or is not a human being. I don't think this is something that can possibly be proved one way or another, it is a matter or conscience, not science.

And when I ask gadget to "prove" that an embryo is "life," my point is that she can't prove it. I don't expect her to actually prove it, because I don't believe that this is something that can be proved one way or another.

[396power 2]

Fair enough, It is clear to us both!

[gadgetlady 4]

Just to play your game a little bit, I would explain to the slave owner that an African American is a human being because human beings have language skills unlike any other animal, human beings have highly developed imagination that can be used to create practical things like buildings as well as art, etc.

Infants don't. So are they not human? Certainly, the Nobel Prize winning people and educators I've cited before think they don't. Are they wrong? Not according to your definition above. The infants don't have language skills and a highly developed imagination and they don't create practical things. So is it OK with you if Dr. Peter Singer kills his infant newborn child? Is it his choice to make and not yours to interfere? Sure sounds like it to me.

[gadgetlady 4]

I thought it was an interesting question being asked. I would do similar. I'd also ask what the slave owner saw as differences between the African Americans and other humans of other races. Talk about any they came up with.

What kind of differences? Because, of course, you know that blacks are closer to apes because of their skin color and hair texture. And their brains are smaller; it's a proven fact! And have you ever heard them talk? They clearly have underdeveloped language. And their skills are not up to the level of a white man. So they aren't really a full person.

(Just so no one gets confused, I don't believe all of the crap I just wrote. I'm paraphrasing what a slave owner might have said)

[lisah25 3]

What kind of differences? Because, of course, you know that blacks are closer to apes because of their skin color and hair texture. And their brains are smaller; it's a proven fact! And have you ever heard them talk? They clearly have underdeveloped language. And their skills are not up to the level of a white man. So they aren't really a full person.

(Just so no one gets confused, I don't believe all of the crap I just wrote. I'm paraphrasing what a slave owner might have said)

Of course that's what they would say. And no time-traveler is going to change their minds any more then any of us here are going to change each other's minds.

[gadgetlady 4]

a dividing embryo consisting of 4 cells

4 cells don't have feet. Or a heartbeat for that matter. You can keep saying "4 cells" if you want, but you're just deluding yourself and you're certainly not fooling anyone else.

[gadgetlady 4]

Of course that's what they would say. And no time-traveler is going to change their minds any more then any of us here are going to change each other's minds.

Ahhh, but that is precisely the point. They were WRONG. And to convince them otherwise, you would have to use a better argument or provide them with more information. So use modern scientific data. Convince me using some other form of information that blacks are human beings.

[marjon9 6]

4 cells don't have feet. Or a heartbeat for that matter. You can keep saying "4 cells" if you want, but you're just deluding yourself and you're certainly not fooling anyone else.

I'm not deluding myself or trying to fool anyone. If your theories hold up at all, they apply every bit as much to a dividing embryo with 4 cells as a fetus at 12 or 16 weeks. If you acknowledge that a dividing embryo with 4 cells is not a "human being," then your argument is not worth the electrons in cyberspace. I focus on the early stages of development because it emphasizes the point that reasonable people can disagree that a fetus is a human being. Feel free to disagree, but this accusation that I am deluding myself and trying to fool people is just worthless hostility that doesn't advance the argument or prove anything. Are you just going to keep doing that with every post for all eternity? It was fun for a while but it is really getting boring now.

Gadget, the bottom line is, we understand each other's positions pretty well now. We disagree with each other. I understand and respect your position. You seem unable to do the same with respect to my point of view. I accept that. Can we leave it there?

If you have something else you'd like to talk about, I'm willing. But I'm not up for the hostility and sarcasm any more. It was fun for a while, but it's gotten boring now.