Originally posted by Makedde
You can use facts, but if someone has an opinion that is factually wrong, it shouldn't matter. So what if someones opinion is factually wrong? It's still an opinion.
I never looked at it that way.....okay, tTo be honest I thought the same thing, but was never brave enough to speak my mind. But now I can. I think a fetus is actually a TV Remote Control...no seriously, I think it is. And I think one is allowed to abort TV Remote Controls....so......
Originally posted by Bardock42
I never looked at it that way.....okay, tTo be honest I thought the same thing, but was never brave enough to speak my mind. But now I can. I think a fetus is actually a TV Remote Control...no seriously, I think it is. And I think one is allowed to abort TV Remote Controls....so......
😆
Originally posted by Makedde
You can use facts, but if someone has an opinion that is factually wrong, it shouldn't matter. So what if someones opinion is factually wrong? It's still an opinion.
I think you need to go back to grammar school. If someone uses facts, they're arguing objectively. If someone has an opinion, it's subjective. Opinions can't be factually wrong. And if all we're doing here is sharing opinions, this thread would be about four pages long, tops. But we're not- we're debating the validity of abortion. If you couldn't figure that out by now, you probably shouldn't be plunging headfirst into this thread.
Geez, I leave for a day and look at all the walls of text that pop up.
So no one has actually defined "human life" for me yet. Well, whob did, but by his definition, his own mockery of my argument (skin cells) are human.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Stupid argument.If I peel off enough layers of my skin, I'll come up with 46 chromosomes as well...does that mean those layers of my skin, now represent life? 😕
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Your lack of knowledge regarding the field of Biology is clearly beginning to show Alpha. Do you know what an amoeba is? It's a single celled organism. Guess what an amoeba is considered to be? A type of "life" bud.Whether it be represented in the form of a zygote, an 8 week fetus, a 16 week fetus, a 24 week old fetus, or a 36 week old fetus, the point being made my friend is that each individual stage of the fertilized ovum's development, can clearly be defined as a type of "life."
So what type of "life" do they represent?...duh..duh..duh..duh..a "human" one.😉
Put the word "human" in front of the word "life" and you get the phrase..duh..duh..duh..duh.."human life"
So what is your point exactly? That a human life = something with 46 chromosomes and will potentially become another human being? Yeah, sperm and eggs are specialized cells with 23 chromosomes, so you can disregard them as life. Skin won't turn into humans, so again, not human. But it's quite laughable. By that same logic, people don't live.
So again, what is the defining feature of a living human?
I don't personally care for whatever Whob is arguing. The ONE point he made about human life beginning at conception was wrong, factually.
So whatever else he's trying to argue (which now appears to be that life in GENERAL begins at conception) is of no concern to me.
Many laws consider it to be a human once it becomes a foetus, this being by the end of the eighth week.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't personally care for whatever Whob is arguing. The ONE point he made about human life beginning at conception was wrong, factually.So whatever else he's trying to argue (which now appears to be that life in GENERAL begins at conception) is of no concern to me.
Many laws consider it to be a human once it becomes a foetus, this being by the end of the eighth week.
-AC
So the “potential” life that exists before this period should not be of any concern to anyone wanting to have an abortion, because “technically” it’s not really a living creature?
I think that life starts at conception in the sense that, at the moment of conception, things are put into motion that will eventually produce a living creature, unless there are natural complications or human intervention.
Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
So the “potential” life that exists before this period should not be of any concern to anyone wanting to have an abortion, because “technically” it’s not really a living creature?I think that life starts at conception in the sense that, at the moment of conception, things are put into motion that will eventually produce a living creature, unless there are natural complications or human intervention.
What? Whob said it's a human life at conception. Factually incorrect considering it's not a human at conception, it's a cell. It becomes a human when it's a foetus, which is the end of the eighth week of conception. I don't get why I'm having to explain this multiple times.
Life in general beginning at conception isn't provable either way, for or against. If it was (either way) then that argument would also be done and dusted. Since it's not provable either way, I couldn't care less about discussing it.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, they can. That's the whole point.-AC
Well no, the whole point of an opinion is that it can't be proven wrong. When someone states something as fact, or it can be disproven by a fact, then it suddenly isn't an opinion anymore, it's just a false statement.
I.E. "I think is that the world is flat" "Well, the world isn't flat, its round, and its proven fact."
So the "opinon" gets disregarded and the person is just plain wrong. And stupid for thinking the world is flat.
A true opinion is something like "I think jello tastes good". Well I dont, but it may taste good to someone else. Unprovable and unfalsifiable.
So, I see what you're saying, but it's basically semantics.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Well no, the whole point of an opinion is that it can't be proven wrong. When someone states something as fact, or it can be disproven by a fact, then it suddenly isn't an opinion anymore, it's just a false statement.I.E. "I think is that the world is flat" "Well, the world isn't flat, its round, and its proven fact."
No, incorrect. Back in the day when there was no proof of that, it was still an opinion and it was still wrong.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
So the "opinon" gets disregarded and the person is just plain wrong. And stupid for thinking the world is flat.
Precisely, their opinion is factually wrong. Hence having an incorrect opinion. End of story.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
A true opinion is something like "I think jello tastes good". Well I dont, but it may taste good to someone else. Unprovable and unfalsifiable.
No, that's just an opinion on something subjective.
Either way, it's irrelevant here. Since we are dealing with facts.
-AC
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
It's semantics AC."A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof."
Once it's been proven or disproven by a fact, it's not an opinion anymore.
I'm aware of fact and opinion, I spend most of my time here reminding people of the difference.
The definition does not stop people having an incorrect opinion, as proven. There has been one such fact proven in this thread and people still maintain the opposite opinion. It's wrong, but it's still an opinion. That said, once you've proven it to be a fact, it means the previous opinion they held....was wrong.
Eg: "I believe the Earth is flat." If you then prove it's not, their opinion was previously wrong (and yes, it was an opinion at some point, because it was believed with confidence but no proof against or for).
You are under the impression that once a fact is proven, the ability to still hold an opposite opinion is gone. It's not, it's just stupid to have. Just the way it is, but this isn't relevant to the thread.
-AC
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Well, there should be a word for a 'wrong opinion' and it shouldn't be 'opinion'. Once the opinion is proven wrong it isn't an opinion anymore, by the very nature of the word.
Well, an opinion proven wrong is still, technically, 'A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof'.
Key terms- belief, and confidence. The subjective parts.
All the second clause of the definition does is differentiate a fact. IE- it allows the upgrade.
My point, though poorly illustrated, was opinions themselves cannot be factually proven right or wrong as they are subjective, though the material they are based on may be factually right or wrong. That's pretty evident. It was simply a case of me being in a hurry and not using the proper words. If all we did was argue opinions, no one would be right or wrong by having an opinion, even in incorrect one. But if we're arguing facts, than yes, we can determine right and wrong. No point in getting off track about it.