The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Chris Spaghetti on November 25, 2008, 06:30:19 AM
-
Imagine there is an IVF clinic which has caught on fire, the fireman goes in alone (for reasons unknown) and finds a tray of developing fetuses early into their development. In the next room he sees a woman collapsed of asphyxiation behind a closed door. He has only seconds to get out before the floor collapses and kills him, the woman and the fetuses and the storage equipment of the fetuses is so heavy that if he picks it up he can't possibly carry the woman out too (or vice-versa)
The question is: Who should he save from a pro-lifers point of view? The tray of fetuses or the one woman?
-
I would like to say right now: Impossible dilemmas are dumb.
-
Imagine there is an IVF clinic which has caught on fire, the fireman goes in alone (for reasons unknown) and finds a tray of developing fetuses early into their development. In the next room he sees a woman collapsed of asphyxiation behind a closed door. He has only seconds to get out before the floor collapses and kills him, the woman and the fetuses and the storage equipment of the fetuses is so heavy that if he picks it up he can't possibly carry the woman out too (or vice-versa)
The question is: Who should he save from a pro-lifers point of view? The tray of fetuses or the one woman?
This is so old I think it was around in the 70s.
Even within the pro-life movement, there is no rigid dogma that all lives have equal value. Replace the scenario with five invalids with Stage 4 cancer and one healthy 8 year old. If you can only save one group, then there's nothing wrong with choosing the kid. Obviously if God wanted everyone alive he wouldn't have started the damn fire and sent your ass in there without backup.
-
Tray of fetuses? Wtf?
-
Tray of fetuses? Wtf?
Yep. WTF indeed!
-
Tray of fetuses? Wtf?
Yep. WTF indeed!
hey be fair, I never said it was a goodhypothetical IVF clinic! :D
-
I would like to say right now: Impossible dilemmas are dumb.
Hardly an impossible situation.
He is a veteran firefighter living in a small community. The rest of the firefighters there are simply volunteers and have seen about 10 big fires combined. He used to live in a city where he saw that many in a week. They freeze up, throwing water in through windows and other useless tactics. He hears there are people inside, grabs the hoseline and charges in.
Very possible dilemma.
-
Imagine there is an IVF clinic which has caught on fire, the fireman goes in alone (for reasons unknown) and finds a tray of developing fetuses early into their development. In the next room he sees a woman collapsed of asphyxiation behind a closed door. He has only seconds to get out before the floor collapses and kills him, the woman and the fetuses and the storage equipment of the fetuses is so heavy that if he picks it up he can't possibly carry the woman out too (or vice-versa)
The question is: Who should he save from a pro-lifers point of view? The tray of fetuses or the one woman?
This is so old I think it was around in the 70s.
Even within the pro-life movement, there is no rigid dogma that all lives have equal value. Replace the scenario with five invalids with Stage 4 cancer and one healthy 8 year old. If you can only save one group, then there's nothing wrong with choosing the kid. Obviously if God wanted everyone alive he wouldn't have started the damn fire and sent your ass in there without backup.
That's not true and you know it. The whole anti-choice movement is based on the rigid dogma that all life (or possible life) is equal, otherwise there is absolutely no point of it.
-
Imagine there is an IVF clinic which has caught on fire, the fireman goes in alone (for reasons unknown) and finds a tray of developing fetuses early into their development. In the next room he sees a woman collapsed of asphyxiation behind a closed door. He has only seconds to get out before the floor collapses and kills him, the woman and the fetuses and the storage equipment of the fetuses is so heavy that if he picks it up he can't possibly carry the woman out too (or vice-versa)
The question is: Who should he save from a pro-lifers point of view? The tray of fetuses or the one woman?
This is so old I think it was around in the 70s.
Even within the pro-life movement, there is no rigid dogma that all lives have equal value. Replace the scenario with five invalids with Stage 4 cancer and one healthy 8 year old. If you can only save one group, then there's nothing wrong with choosing the kid. Obviously if God wanted everyone alive he wouldn't have started the damn fire and sent your ass in there without backup.
So if god wanted everyone alive he wouldn't have given the child to someone who would have an abortion.
You have now qualified abortion as God's will.
-
Imagine there is an IVF clinic which has caught on fire, the fireman goes in alone (for reasons unknown) and finds a tray of developing fetuses early into their development. In the next room he sees a woman collapsed of asphyxiation behind a closed door. He has only seconds to get out before the floor collapses and kills him, the woman and the fetuses and the storage equipment of the fetuses is so heavy that if he picks it up he can't possibly carry the woman out too (or vice-versa)
The question is: Who should he save from a pro-lifers point of view? The tray of fetuses or the one woman?
This is so old I think it was around in the 70s.
Even within the pro-life movement, there is no rigid dogma that all lives have equal value. Replace the scenario with five invalids with Stage 4 cancer and one healthy 8 year old. If you can only save one group, then there's nothing wrong with choosing the kid. Obviously if God wanted everyone alive he wouldn't have started the damn fire and sent your ass in there without backup.
And if God wanted Terri Schiavo alive, He wouldn't have smote her.
-
By that logic if god didn't want Jews burned in ovens, he shouldn't have let Hitler been born, or at least born into the circumstances he was.
God doesn't exist. Therefore he doesn't give a flying fuck of a shit. [/tangent]
-
First God put us here to make our own choices. Second, if I found a tray of Fetus'
s they would not survive anyway because they are already dying since they are too small to survive for any more then a few minutes. I would save the mother. Its good that problem would not happen. I like how pro killers are trying to tame down the fact that they are killing a baby. They change the words, like pro choice. it isn't Choice that is the debate, it is pro death, they are not fighting for the right to choose anything because if you don't support abortion, then it wouldn't matter if it is illegal. They are fighting for one thing, the right to kill a baby, not fetus, baby. May daughter was born at 23 weeks gestation, that is 1 week before the legal deadline to abort, she cried, she felt pain, she held my hand and is now in 2nd grade. So don't go telling us that your fighting for the right to Choose. and clean up the terms. At least have the balls to say what it is, say that you want to be able to kill babies. If you think you can wash your hands of it, fine. But they feel pain, they are very much alive.
-
By that logic if god didn't want Jews burned in ovens, he shouldn't have let Hitler been born, or at least born into the circumstances he was.
God doesn't exist. Therefore he doesn't give a flying fuck of a shit. [/tangent]
Yes, without hitler, no WWII, then the U.S. stays in the great depression, the leader of the world economy doesn't emerge. Europe doesn't build all new ports as a result of them being destroyed in the world, further hurting the economy. Without hitler the world could have completely collapsed, leading to poverty and hunger everywhere. I am citing a few small examples.
-
I wish that I was a woman so that I could experience what it's like to have an abortion of my own. :(
-
First God put us here to make our own choices. Second, if I found a tray of Fetus'
s they would not survive anyway because they are already dying since they are too small to survive for any more then a few minutes. I would save the mother. Its good that problem would not happen. I like how pro killers are trying to tame down the fact that they are killing a baby. They change the words, like pro choice. it isn't Choice that is the debate, it is pro death, they are not fighting for the right to choose anything because if you don't support abortion, then it wouldn't matter if it is illegal. They are fighting for one thing, the right to kill a baby, not fetus, baby. May daughter was born at 23 weeks gestation, that is 1 week before the legal deadline to abort, she cried, she felt pain, she held my hand and is now in 2nd grade. So don't go telling us that your fighting for the right to Choose. and clean up the terms. At least have the balls to say what it is, say that you want to be able to kill babies. If you think you can wash your hands of it, fine. But they feel pain, they are very much alive.
Yes, everyone who is pro-choice just wants to kill babies, because pro-choicers are all inherently evil. Idiot.
-
Foetuses are parasites.
-
I would like to say right now: Impossible dilemmas are dumb.
Hardly an impossible situation.
He is a veteran firefighter living in a small community. The rest of the firefighters there are simply volunteers and have seen about 10 big fires combined. He used to live in a city where he saw that many in a week. They freeze up, throwing water in through windows and other useless tactics. He hears there are people inside, grabs the hoseline and charges in.
Very possible dilemma.
No, you mistinterpreted my statement. I meant that what you are trying to do here is to create a dilemma in which the choice is impossible to make, and feel good about, obviously. Hence the term: Impossible dilemma.
-
Second, if I found a tray of Fetus'
s they would not survive anyway because they are already dying since they are too small to survive for any more then a few minutes
The 'trays' are life support devices, hence why they're so heavy.
-
A tray of fetuses walks into a bar.
The bartender says nobody underage can drink.
The fetuses reply they are not anybody as they are potential humans.
I forgot where I was going with this.
END.
-
First God put us here to make our own choices. Second, if I found a tray of Fetus'
s they would not survive anyway because they are already dying since they are too small to survive for any more then a few minutes. I would save the mother. Its good that problem would not happen. I like how pro killers are trying to tame down the fact that they are killing a baby. They change the words, like pro choice. it isn't Choice that is the debate, it is pro death, they are not fighting for the right to choose anything because if you don't support abortion, then it wouldn't matter if it is illegal. They are fighting for one thing, the right to kill a baby, not fetus, baby. May daughter was born at 23 weeks gestation, that is 1 week before the legal deadline to abort, she cried, she felt pain, she held my hand and is now in 2nd grade. So don't go telling us that your fighting for the right to Choose. and clean up the terms. At least have the balls to say what it is, say that you want to be able to kill babies. If you think you can wash your hands of it, fine. But they feel pain, they are very much alive.
Yes, everyone who is pro-choice just wants to kill babies, because pro-choicers are all inherently evil. Idiot.
yes, you are correct. Everyone who is pro-choice just wants to kill babies. You added the inherently evil part so I can assume that you feel that it is evil to be a pro-choicer, it is not an assumption that I placed in my statement. Can you give me an example of a pro-choice person who does not want to kill a baby. They aren't fighting for the right to choose anything else, the subject of the "pro-choice" movement is the right to choose to kill a baby. There is no 3rd option. So yes, EVERYONE WHO IS PRO-CHOICE JUST WANTS TO KILL BABIES.
So I challange you to give me an option that a pro-choice person is not trying to kill a baby. btw using the "to save the mother" is not an option because that is not the fight that the pro-choicers are fighting for and is just a cop out.
ps. for the idiot remark I fart in your general direction. It is better to be an idiot then a fool. And you are a fool.
-
It should be against the rules to post here if you have an IQ below 40.
Can you give me an example of a pro-choice person who does not want to kill a baby.
The majority of pro-choice advocates including myself.
babies != fetuses
gtfo
-
Second, if I found a tray of Fetus'
s they would not survive anyway because they are already dying since they are too small to survive for any more then a few minutes
The 'trays' are life support devices, hence why they're so heavy.
Hmmm, You see in the situation you stated "early" in developement. How early? If the Fetus is under 21 weeks there is no chance of it surviving outside the womb anyways. If the fetus is over 21 weeks it can survive. So if they were closest to me, I would save the fetus'. if the woman was closest to me I would save her. The value of both lives would be the same. Maybe I am reading in to this too much but you keep saying fetus'. Are you talking about a 2 week old fetus or 23 week old fetus? Huge difference. A 2 week old fetus for one thing isn't viable and doesn't look much like a baby so you could almost say that it isn't a baby yet, and I mean almost. But a 23 week old fetus, which right now is still legal to abort. Has no physical difference between itself and a fully developed 40 week baby with the exception of 1 thing. Fat. All its organs are developed, brain is fully developed. and if you would walk by it you would think it is a super small fully developed baby. Their eyes are still closed but they can see light, they can hear noise and respond to touch.
So thats a tough choice to make, but I think I would go for the person closest to me baby or girl.
-
It should be against the rules to post here if you have an IQ below 40.
Can you give me an example of a pro-choice person who does not want to kill a baby.
The majority of pro-choice advocates including myself.
babies != fetuses
gtfo
I couldn't agree with you more. You just proved my point. You "pro-choicers" call the BABY a Fetus. For what? To make it easier to kill that is all. So just call it a baby. You shouldn't have to change the names to lessen what you are doing. You change the names to make you feel better. So you can say, "I'm not killing a baby, I am aborting a fetus." Or "I'm not Pro-Abortion, I am Pro-Choice." Its the same thing you fool. So from now on if baby = fetuses, then just call it a baby. You shouldn't have to mask your words if you are right. And again you have given me no valid point as to what a Pro Choice person is fighting for other then to Abort (kill) a Fetus (baby). I rest my case. Slam Dunk. You lose, I win. Call me names if you want but you have just added to my example. A fact is a fact. I think your IQ is about to drop under the 40 limit you stated. You better quit while you are ahead. This is a fight you won't win fool.
-
A tray of fetuses walks into a bar.
The bartender says nobody underage can drink.
The fetuses reply they are not anybody as they are potential humans.
I forgot where I was going with this.
END.
I think somebody should have denied you alcohol, too.
-
I couldn't agree with you more. You just proved my point. You "pro-choicers" call the BABY a Fetus. For what? To make it easier to kill that is all. So just call it a baby. You shouldn't have to change the names to lessen what you are doing. You change the names to make you feel better. So you can say, "I'm not killing a baby, I am aborting a fetus." Or "I'm not Pro-Abortion, I am Pro-Choice." Its the same thing you fool. So from now on if baby = fetuses, then just call it a baby. You shouldn't have to mask your words if you are right.
Are we going to start referring to caterpillars as "butterflies", too?
-
I couldn't agree with you more. You just proved my point. You "pro-choicers" call the BABY a Fetus. For what? To make it easier to kill that is all. So just call it a baby. You shouldn't have to change the names to lessen what you are doing. You change the names to make you feel better. So you can say, "I'm not killing a baby, I am aborting a fetus." Or "I'm not Pro-Abortion, I am Pro-Choice." Its the same thing you fool. So from now on if baby = fetuses, then just call it a baby. You shouldn't have to mask your words if you are right.
Are we going to start referring to caterpillars as "butterflies", too?
The difference between a Caterpillar and a butterfly and a 23 week old fetus and a 40 week baby are huge. There is no difference between a 23 week baby and a 40 week baby except for fat, weight and color receptors on the cornea.
ﮎingulaЯiτy proved my point and amplified my statement by showing that Babies = Fetus. Thus proving my point that Pro-choicers change the words to make it easier to kill a baby. Thats all.
-
The difference between a Caterpillar and a butterfly and a 23 week old fetus and a 40 week baby are huge. There is no difference between a 23 week baby and a 40 week baby except for fat, weight and color receptors on the cornea.
And the fact that a 23 week old baby would usually not survive without some sort of life support system, whether that be its mother's blood or artificial life support.
ﮎingulaЯiτy proved my point and amplified my statement by showing that Babies = Fetus. Thus proving my point that Pro-choicers change the words to make it easier to kill a baby. Thats all.
Even assuming that you are corrrect in that statement, you haven't explained why it is wrong to kill babies.
-
The difference between a Caterpillar and a butterfly and a 23 week old fetus and a 40 week baby are huge. There is no difference between a 23 week baby and a 40 week baby except for fat, weight and color receptors on the cornea.
And the fact that a 23 week old baby would usually not survive without some sort of life support system, whether that be its mother's blood or artificial life support.
ﮎingulaЯiτy proved my point and amplified my statement by showing that Babies = Fetus. Thus proving my point that Pro-choicers change the words to make it easier to kill a baby. Thats all.
Even assuming that you are corrrect in that statement, you haven't explained why it is wrong to kill babies.
Proving if it is right or wrong to kill babies isn't the point, if that is what a pro-choice person wants to do then they should just say it.
A 23 weeker would require life support, as would a person involved in car crash, or heart attack or many other medical issues.
-
First God put us here to make our own choices. Second, if I found a tray of Fetus'
s they would not survive anyway because they are already dying since they are too small to survive for any more then a few minutes. I would save the mother. Its good that problem would not happen. I like how pro killers are trying to tame down the fact that they are killing a baby. They change the words, like pro choice. it isn't Choice that is the debate, it is pro death, they are not fighting for the right to choose anything because if you don't support abortion, then it wouldn't matter if it is illegal. They are fighting for one thing, the right to kill a baby, not fetus, baby. May daughter was born at 23 weeks gestation, that is 1 week before the legal deadline to abort, she cried, she felt pain, she held my hand and is now in 2nd grade. So don't go telling us that your fighting for the right to Choose. and clean up the terms. At least have the balls to say what it is, say that you want to be able to kill babies. If you think you can wash your hands of it, fine. But they feel pain, they are very much alive.
Yes, everyone who is pro-choice just wants to kill babies, because pro-choicers are all inherently evil. Idiot.
yes, you are correct. Everyone who is pro-choice just wants to kill babies. You added the inherently evil part so I can assume that you feel that it is evil to be a pro-choicer, it is not an assumption that I placed in my statement. Can you give me an example of a pro-choice person who does not want to kill a baby. They aren't fighting for the right to choose anything else, the subject of the "pro-choice" movement is the right to choose to kill a baby. There is no 3rd option. So yes, EVERYONE WHO IS PRO-CHOICE JUST WANTS TO KILL BABIES.
So I challange you to give me an option that a pro-choice person is not trying to kill a baby. btw using the "to save the mother" is not an option because that is not the fight that the pro-choicers are fighting for and is just a cop out.
ps. for the idiot remark I fart in your general direction. It is better to be an idiot then a fool. And you are a fool.
That went right over your head, didn't it?
-
The Spartans killed babies that were born who were found unhealthy, unfit, abnormal, etcetera, and their society thrived because of it. Maybe Dark Knight should condemn them as well, even better, build a flux capacitor and go back and stop them, and watch how quickly they show him how little they care about what he has to say.
-
ﮎingulaЯiτy proved my point and amplified my statement by showing that Babies = Fetus. Thus proving my point that Pro-choicers change the words to make it easier to kill a baby.
Proof?
And I said Babies != Fetuses. ::)
I say they are different terms and you somehow interpret this a confirmation that they are they same thing.
Applying to your perspective, I have no reason to want to justify killing babies, so why would I need to dehumanize one? No, I realized they were different, before I came to the conclusion that abortion was okay. Stop pulling shit out of your ass and wiping it all over this thread.
-
A 23 weeker would require life support, as would a person involved in car crash, or heart attack or many other medical issues.
You're missing the point entirely. A 23 week old baby cannot survive naturally outside of its mother's womb, therefore it cannot be considered as anything more than a parasite. The fact that we have the technology available to remove its dependence on its mother doesn't change this, any more than it changes the fact that the person in a car crash got injured.
-
Fetus is to magma as baby is to lava, but I repeat myself.
lrn2biology
No woman should ever be forced to give birth to child of any age. Also, if we start making anti-abortion laws, I wonder how many women will start giving birth to children at that minimum age for life.
-
A 23 weeker would require life support, as would a person involved in car crash, or heart attack or many other medical issues.
You're missing the point entirely. A 23 week old baby cannot survive naturally outside of its mother's womb, therefore it cannot be considered as anything more than a parasite. The fact that we have the technology available to remove its dependence on its mother doesn't change this, any more than it changes the fact that the person in a car crash got injured.
A parasite does not change from a parasite into a perfectly self reliant being. Would you admit to being a parasite?
-
A parasite does not change from a parasite into a perfectly self reliant being. Would you admit to being a parasite?
Please link me to a definition of the word "parasite" which states that parasitism must always be perpetual.
-
A parasite does not change from a parasite into a perfectly self reliant being. Would you admit to being a parasite?
Please link me to a definition of the word "parasite" which states that parasitism must always be perpetual.
Do you know of any thaT AREN'T
-
A parasite does not change from a parasite into a perfectly self reliant being. Would you admit to being a parasite?
Please link me to a definition of the word "parasite" which states that parasitism must always be perpetual.
Do you know of any thaT AREN'T
Watch out for the cAPS lOCK key.
Also, he just named one. People.
-
A parasite does not change from a parasite into a perfectly self reliant being. Would you admit to being a parasite?
Please link me to a definition of the word "parasite" which states that parasitism must always be perpetual.
Do you know of any thaT AREN'T
Watch out for the cAPS lOCK key.
Also, he just named one. People.
People are not parasites.
-
Define "parasite".
-
A parasite does not change from a parasite into a perfectly self reliant being. Would you admit to being a parasite?
Please link me to a definition of the word "parasite" which states that parasitism must always be perpetual.
Do you know of any thaT AREN'T
Watch out for the cAPS lOCK key.
Also, he just named one. People.
People are not parasites.
In the womb, yes, they are.
-
A 23 weeker would require life support, as would a person involved in car crash, or heart attack or many other medical issues.
You're missing the point entirely. A 23 week old baby cannot survive naturally outside of its mother's womb, therefore it cannot be considered as anything more than a parasite. The fact that we have the technology available to remove its dependence on its mother doesn't change this, any more than it changes the fact that the person in a car crash got injured.
My daughter was born at 23 weeks and survived with little more then oxygen and heat from the isolete. If a full term baby is born and left alone it would starve to death so what is the difference.
-
The difference is that a full term baby doesn't need to be kept in a box with breathing and feeding apparatus.
-
ﮎingulaЯiτy proved my point and amplified my statement by showing that Babies = Fetus. Thus proving my point that Pro-choicers change the words to make it easier to kill a baby.
Proof?
And I said Babies != Fetuses. ::)
I say they are different terms and you somehow interpret this a confirmation that they are they same thing.
Applying to your perspective, I have no reason to want to justify killing babies, so why would I need to dehumanize one? No, I realized they were different, before I came to the conclusion that abortion was okay. Stop pulling shit out of your ass and wiping it all over this thread.
you came to that conclusion in order to justify the cause. That is all.
-
The difference is that a full term baby doesn't need to be kept in a box with breathing and feeding apparatus.
Ok how many full term babies feed themselves? How many full term babies can survive at room temperature. All the box does is keep them warm. All a feeding apparatus does is feed them without a bottle.
so if a baby requires more heat and a breathing apparatus, and a little oxygen they are not a baby. Be glad you were not born with athsma, and low birth weight.
-
The difference is that a full term baby doesn't need to be kept in a box with breathing and feeding apparatus.
Ok how many full term babies feed themselves? How many full term babies can survive at room temperature. All the box does is keep them warm. All a feeding apparatus does is feed them without a bottle.
so if a baby requires more heat and a breathing apparatus, and a little oxygen they are not a baby. Be glad you were not born with athsma, and low birth weight.
Is this all coming to a point on the issue at hand, or are you just trolling now?
-
The difference is that a full term baby doesn't need to be kept in a box with breathing and feeding apparatus.
Ok how many full term babies feed themselves? How many full term babies can survive at room temperature. All the box does is keep them warm. All a feeding apparatus does is feed them without a bottle.
so if a baby requires more heat and a breathing apparatus, and a little oxygen they are not a baby. Be glad you were not born with athsma, and low birth weight.
Exactly. If you want to label a fetus a parasite you must also label any infant a parasite too.
-
It's the woman's choice no matter what. If she doesn't want a baby, no one can force her to have one.
-
Except maybe the government, as it turns out. ::)
-
It's the woman's choice no matter what. If she doesn't want a baby, no one can force her to have one.
But we can stop her from killing it.
-
It's the woman's choice no matter what. If she doesn't want a baby, no one can force her to have one.
But we can stop her from killing it.
No, we can't.
-
It's the woman's choice no matter what. If she doesn't want a baby, no one can force her to have one.
But we can stop her from killing it.
No, we can't.
why not?
-
It's the woman's choice no matter what. If she doesn't want a baby, no one can force her to have one.
But we can stop her from killing it.
No, we can't.
why not?
Because she should have the right to decide what to do with her own body.
-
It's the woman's choice no matter what. If she doesn't want a baby, no one can force her to have one.
But we can stop her from killing it.
No, we can't.
why not?
A bottle of clorox does wonders. As does a falcon punch, rusty coathangar, flight of stairs, roller coasters, etc.
We can't stop them.
-
I want to learn to do falcon punches, I could do a world of good.
-
You could set up clinics in hardcore christian countries.
-
It's the woman's choice no matter what. If she doesn't want a baby, no one can force her to have one.
But we can stop her from killing it.
No, we can't.
why not?
Because she should have the right to decide what to do with her own body.
She does. but that babies life is not hers.
-
It's the woman's choice no matter what. If she doesn't want a baby, no one can force her to have one.
But we can stop her from killing it.
No, we can't.
why not?
Because she should have the right to decide what to do with her own body.
She does. but that babies life is not hers.
It's in her body. She makes the decisions.
-
It's the woman's choice no matter what. If she doesn't want a baby, no one can force her to have one.
But we can stop her from killing it.
No, we can't.
why not?
Because she should have the right to decide what to do with her own body.
She does. but that babies life is not hers.
She has no moral responsibility to the baby, no more than to a hobo in the street. In a perfect world, both would be saved, and wanted, but that is not the case.
-
It's in her body. She makes the decisions.
When you enagage in consensual sex witha woman, does she have the right to rip off your penis?
-
It's in her body. She makes the decisions.
When you enagage in consensual sex witha woman, does she have the right to rip off your penis?
Strawman.
-
Strawman.
It's in her body.
-
Strawman.
It's in her body.
Strawman.
-
Strawman.
It's in her body.
Your mother should have been smarter when you were in there, then?
-
Strawman.
Counterexample, not a strawman.
-
Strawman.
Counterexample, not a strawman.
Wrong.
-
It's the woman's choice no matter what. If she doesn't want a baby, no one can force her to have one.
But we can stop her from killing it.
No, we can't.
why not?
Because she should have the right to decide what to do with her own body.
She does. but that babies life is not hers.
She has no moral responsibility to the baby, no more than to a hobo in the street. In a perfect world, both would be saved, and wanted, but that is not the case.
So its okay to kill hobos? So why is it you are not allowed to kill a baby once its been born?
-
It's no longer parasitic and there's no physical burden on the mother internally.
-
Your argument:
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.
2. A fetus is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with a fetus.
Which is reducible to:
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.
2. X is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with X.
So replace X with penis and the structure of the argument is maintained. A strawman is a misrepresentation of an argument, if you claim that I misrepresent yours you must demonstrate how.
Another counterexample: Organs are inside a woman?s body but the law dissallowes her from selling them, so whether somthing is inside my body or not is irrelevant
-
It's the woman's choice no matter what. If she doesn't want a baby, no one can force her to have one.
But we can stop her from killing it.
No, we can't.
why not?
Because she should have the right to decide what to do with her own body.
She does. but that babies life is not hers.
She has no moral responsibility to the baby, no more than to a hobo in the street. In a perfect world, both would be saved, and wanted, but that is not the case.
So its okay to kill hobos? So why is it you are not allowed to kill a baby once its been born?
I don't condone killing hobos, but I still don't think that I have a moral obligation to personally do something about ones situation if I see one on the street. This is the same with a fetus whose mother does not want a child.
-
Your argument:
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.
2. A fetus is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with a fetus.
Which is reducible to:
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.
2. X is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with X.
So replace X with penis and the structure of the argument is maintained. A strawman is a misrepresentation of an argument, if you claim that I misrepresent yours you must demonstrate how.
Another counterexample: Organs are inside a woman?s body but the law dissallowes her from selling them, so whether somthing is inside my body or not is irrelevant
A fetus is not a required part of her to survive.
-
And we are also not talking about selling the fetus. That, were it an issue, I would love to outlaw.
-
Your argument:
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.
2. A fetus is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with a fetus.
Which is reducible to:
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.
2. X is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with X.
So replace X with penis and the structure of the argument is maintained. A strawman is a misrepresentation of an argument, if you claim that I misrepresent yours you must demonstrate how.
Another counterexample: Organs are inside a woman?s body but the law dissallowes her from selling them, so whether somthing is inside my body or not is irrelevant
A fetus is not a required part of her to survive.
Neither is a kidney.
-
Aborting a fetus will not lead to increased crime rates. Making it legal for common folks to sell organs will.
-
Your argument:
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.
2. A fetus is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with a fetus.
Which is reducible to:
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.
2. X is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with X.
So replace X with penis and the structure of the argument is maintained. A strawman is a misrepresentation of an argument, if you claim that I misrepresent yours you must demonstrate how.
Another counterexample: Organs are inside a woman?s body but the law dissallowes her from selling them, so whether somthing is inside my body or not is irrelevant
A fetus is not a required part of her to survive.
Neither is a kidney.
Wrong. Argument failure.
-
A kidney is required to survive.
-
Your argument:
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.
2. A fetus is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with a fetus.
Which is reducible to:
1. If something is inside a woman's body she can do what she wants with it.
2. X is inside a woman's body.
______________________________
∴ A woman may do what she wants with X.
So replace X with penis and the structure of the argument is maintained. A strawman is a misrepresentation of an argument, if you claim that I misrepresent yours you must demonstrate how.
Another counterexample: Organs are inside a woman?s body but the law dissallowes her from selling them, so whether somthing is inside my body or not is irrelevant
A fetus is not a required part of her to survive.
Neither is a kidney.
Wrong. Argument failure.
How many kidneys you got? Know any math?
-
2. However, You can survive with one, but not without any (dialysis machines do not count as they are not inside you). So your argument is still nullified by factual information.
-
Two. That's not what you said, she does require a kidney to survive.
-
Simple fact is that abortion is the killing of babies that is all. If you chose to name it something else, so be it. again your just calling it other words to make you feel better. btw a baby that is B fed by the mother instead of bottle fed, that would mean the baby is still feeding of the mother and is still a parasite then.
-
When you enagage in consensual sex witha woman, does she have the right to rip off your penis?
Since when is a penis attached to the woman? Is it also taking nutrients and affecting the health of the woman? What a weird penis you must have.
-
Simple fact is that abortion is the killing of babies that is all.
Removal of fetus.
again your just calling it other words to make you feel better.
Using more accurate phrases does not make us feel better, it just makes you wrong, or at the very least, inaccurate.
btw a baby that is B fed by the mother instead of bottle fed, that would mean the baby is still feeding of the mother and is still a parasite then.
Perhaps if you go off the loose definition of a parasite and abandon the solely biological one.
-
Is someone able to link some competent pro-lifers over here? This isn't even a debate anymore.
-
Is someone able to link some competent pro-lifers over here? This isn't even a debate anymore.
thats what you always say after you lose the debates. Thank you for the compliment.
-
Simple fact is that abortion is the killing of babies that is all.
Removal of fetus.
again your just calling it other words to make you feel better.
Using more accurate phrases does not make us feel better, it just makes you wrong, or at the very least, inaccurate.
btw a baby that is B fed by the mother instead of bottle fed, that would mean the baby is still feeding of the mother and is still a parasite then.
Perhaps if you go off the loose definition of a parasite and abandon the solely biological one.
Your 4 pages behind and as usual talking in circles as does everyone when a debate is lost. But again you have proven my point. You attempt to clean the subject by saying removal of the fetus which is again as stated on the beginning of the thread. Killing the baby. As the term Pro-Choice is actually Pro-Kill. There is no choice involved, The only thing a pro-choice person wants is the right to kill a baby.
THis would be funny if it was different subject matter but luckily I know that you just say this stuff to get a rise out of us. But thank you for the easy answer. Feel free to read the beginning of the thread next time.
-
Is someone able to link some competent pro-lifers over here? This isn't even a debate anymore.
Yah, looks like you've enlightened the debate with so much thoughtful information. Your average post is less then 3 words long as a matter of fact this is the longest post you have over the past 20 you posted.
Your like the little dog yipping next to the bull dog. What are you a side kick or something.
-
If my post was so insignificant, why did you address it twice?
I took no sides, I would merely like to be subjected to an intelligent and compelling argument from the pro-life perspective. No offense, but you're doing a really shitty job.
-
Not offended at all. The debate looks to be over as the pro-choicers are already talking in circles. I had the debate won on the 2nd page.
-
Don't triple post like that again, there's an edit button for a reason. Use it.
-
You attempt to clean the subject by saying removal of the fetus which is again as stated on the beginning of the thread.
Fine, you can call it "killing or removing the fetus/potential baby." There is a reason the word fetus was developed. You and your fallacies are not welcome.
As the term Pro-Choice is actually Pro-Kill. There is no choice involved, The only thing a pro-choice person wants is the right to kill a baby.
Um, no. Pro-choice is giving the right to the mother whether they want to have the baby or not (hint, that's a choice). For every mother that decides to have a child, pro-choice advocates do not get into a frenzy about them not aborting, thus we are not pro-kill.
We simply accept the right of the mother to choose what she wants with her body, and in her life. It's about making a life choice, and if you want to force unwanted pregnancies upon people, you're not very far from trying to force what things people should buy, or how they should spend their time.
THis would be funny if it was different subject matter but luckily I know that you just say this stuff to get a rise out of us.
Don't really care if you get upset or not. I like speaking accurately, and you don't.
-
It's the woman's choice no matter what. If she doesn't want a baby, no one can force her to have one.
But we can stop her from killing it.
No, we can't.
why not?
Because she should have the right to decide what to do with her own body.
She does. but that babies life is not hers.
She has no moral responsibility to the baby, no more than to a hobo in the street. In a perfect world, both would be saved, and wanted, but that is not the case.
So its okay to kill hobos? So why is it you are not allowed to kill a baby once its been born?
I don't condone killing hobos, but I still don't think that I have a moral obligation to personally do something about ones situation if I see one on the street. This is the same with a fetus whose mother does not want a child.
First off, no it isn't. Second off, You bastard.
-
Not offended at all. The debate looks to be over as the pro-choicers are already talking in circles. I had the debate won on the 2nd page.
Who's talking in circles, again? Trying to define something biologically different from an infant as an infant, and trying to demonize your opponents. Yeah, that's not talking in circles at all. If you think you've won this, maybe you should just read the thread over again. It might be hard for you, though, since you seem to have no grasp of basic logic.
-
You attempt to clean the subject by saying removal of the fetus which is again as stated on the beginning of the thread.
Fine, you can call it "killing or removing the fetus/potential baby." There is a reason the word fetus was developed. You and your fallacies are not welcome.
The word fetus is the stage between the embryonic stage and birth, so therefor as far as your concerned, as long as a baby isn't born, it is not a baby since it is still a fetus. You must hang out with the same people who think that delivering a baby feet first up to the "fetus'" nose and sticking a needle into its skull to "destroy the fetus". That way they can say that although it was late term it isn't a baby because it was never fully delivered. You might wanna study up on the subject before you start talking so stupid.
As the term Pro-Choice is actually Pro-Kill. There is no choice involved, The only thing a pro-choice person wants is the right to kill a baby.
Um, no. Pro-choice is giving the right to the mother whether they want to have the baby or not (hint, that's a choice). For every mother that decides to have a child, pro-choice advocates do not get into a frenzy about them not aborting, thus we are not pro-kill.
Um, yah, the options are all available to the mother except for but the only one the pro-choice people are fighting for is the choice to have an abortion, I don't hear any Pro-Choice people running around yelling I'm pro-Choice and I thing women need be able to choose to give their baby up for adoption. No they are all fighting for the right to abort. That is a fact. so again, they should at least change the name to pro-abortion because the choice part is bs.
We simply accept the right of the mother to choose what she wants with her body, and in her life. It's about making a life choice, and if you want to force unwanted pregnancies upon people, you're not very far from trying to force what things people should buy, or how they should spend their time.
What about the rights of the baby? wow that was easy, and forcing unwanted pregnancies upon people is quite far from trying to force people to buy something or how to spend their time. Then I guess we should just make it legal for people to randomly shoot people on the street because it isn't far from forcing what people should buy something or spend their time.
THis would be funny if it was different subject matter but luckily I know that you just say this stuff to get a rise out of us.
Don't really care if you get upset or not. I like speaking accurately, and you don't.
Still waiting for something accurate other then simple ramblings of liberal opinions. Not Facts
-
Not offended at all. The debate looks to be over as the pro-choicers are already talking in circles. I had the debate won on the 2nd page.
Who's talking in circles, again? Trying to define something biologically different from an infant as an infant, and trying to demonize your opponents. Yeah, that's not talking in circles at all. If you think you've won this, maybe you should just read the thread over again. It might be hard for you, though, since you seem to have no grasp of basic logic.
How am I demonizing my opponents? By calling a pro-choice person Pro abortion? By stating the facts instead of cleaning up the words for baby and kill and changing them to Fetus and Abort?
whatever.
-
Not offended at all. The debate looks to be over as the pro-choicers are already talking in circles. I had the debate won on the 2nd page.
Who's talking in circles, again? Trying to define something biologically different from an infant as an infant, and trying to demonize your opponents. Yeah, that's not talking in circles at all. If you think you've won this, maybe you should just read the thread over again. It might be hard for you, though, since you seem to have no grasp of basic logic.
How am I demonizing my opponents? By calling a pro-choice person Pro abortion? By lying instead of talking in factual terms, taking words for baby and kill and changing them to Fetus and Abort?
whatever.
Yeah, those two are essentially it. I'm not for abortion. I'm for it being available to those who feel that they need it.
-
Also, pro-life is an overly positive term for what you are. I would rather call you pro-control society, or pro-fascism. A society does not get to give its women orders to have a baby whether they want it or not. You are not pro-life, you are anti-abortion.
-
Also, pro-life is an overly positive term for what you are. I would rather call you pro-control society, or pro-fascism. A society does not get to give its women orders to have a baby whether they want it or not. You are not pro-life, you are anti-abortion.
No, we are pro life because we don't want you guys killing babies. We want to preserve their life.
-
The word fetus is the stage between the embryonic stage and birth, so therefor as far as your concerned, as long as a baby isn't born, it is not a baby since it is still a fetus.
It's not as far as I'm concerned, it is as far as the factual definition is concerned. You don't like it, take it up with doctors.
You must hang out with the same people who think that delivering a baby feet first up to the "fetus'" nose and sticking a needle into its skull to "destroy the fetus". That way they can say that although it was late term it isn't a baby because it was never fully delivered. You might wanna study up on the subject before you start talking so stupid.
Apparently you don't get what attached means.
Um, yah, the options are all available to the mother except for but the only one the pro-choice people are fighting for is the choice to have an abortion, I don't hear any Pro-Choice people running around yelling I'm pro-Choice and I thing women need be able to choose to give their baby up for adoption. No they are all fighting for the right to abort. That is a fact. so again, they should at least change the name to pro-abortion because the choice part is bs.
What the hell are you talking about? You can't just omit things to make your argument sound better. Pro-choice is a choice for all options. If a mother wants to have the baby and keep it, abort, or deliver and give it up once it's born, those are all part of pro-choice. Hell, she can decide to kill herself if she wants to, SHE HAS THAT CHOICE. What you are advocating is oppression.
Saying this other crap about being pro-abortion is just stupid; please show me some proof that people have berated mothers for having children and claimed to be pro-choice. I'd love to see that illogical mess.
What about the rights of the baby?
Fetus. And it can have rights once it is it's own entity separate of the mother.
wow that was easy, and forcing unwanted pregnancies upon people is quite far from trying to force people to buy something or how to spend their time.
Well, it's worse in my book, seeing as buying things and most hobbies or activities don't cause pain and other problems for the person. So, you like the idea of putting someone through pain and discomfort, all for the sake of another being on the planet, versus abolishing that being that can't think, see, feel or choose something?
As is common, your logic applies to all eggs and sperm. Why not attack people that practice safe sex? You're pro-life, you should want to preserve all potential life, just like a fetus.
Then I guess we should just make it legal for people to randomly shoot people on the street because it isn't far from forcing what people should buy something or spend their time.
You're confusing rights with law and order (or at least the attempt). Almost anyone (barring physical or mental ailments) has the ability to kill someone; that is their right. They choose not to do so due to a variety of factors. They either believe it's wrong, or they simply don't want to burden themselves by either dying or going to jail for life. Abortion is no different.
Again, pro-choice is for all options. If you don't believe in pro-choice, I'd like you to follow my strict guidelines of what to eat, drink and say. Better yet, move to China.
Still waiting for something accurate other then simple ramblings of liberal opinions. Not Facts
Scientific definition is a fact, why ignore it? Also, I'm not a liberal; I simply use definitions and facts to make conclusions and choices.
-
Also, pro-life is an overly positive term for what you are. I would rather call you pro-control society, or pro-fascism. A society does not get to give its women orders to have a baby whether they want it or not. You are not pro-life, you are anti-abortion.
No, we are pro life because we don't want you guys killing babies. We want to preserve their life.
And I want to preserve the rights to a good life for potential mothers. Having a baby is great, but if you're not ready for it, or accidentally get pregnant, the technology exists to give you a second chance. Isn't that what you christians are always talking about, getting a second chance?
And you may correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, I've never killed a baby in my entire life.
-
And you may correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, I've never killed a baby in my entire life.
You've killed so many potential babies!!! Baby killer!!!!
-
Also, pro-life is an overly positive term for what you are. I would rather call you pro-control society, or pro-fascism. A society does not get to give its women orders to have a baby whether they want it or not. You are not pro-life, you are anti-abortion.
No, we are pro life because we don't want you guys killing babies. We want to preserve their life.
And I want to preserve the rights to a good life for potential mothers. Having a baby is great, but if you're not ready for it, or accidentally get pregnant, the technology exists to give you a second chance. Isn't that what you christians are always talking about, getting a second chance?
And you may correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, I've never killed a baby in my entire life.
But you support it. And women have the power to not have a baby. Babies don't have any power to control what happens to them.
Italics = Epic Fail. There is no connection between abortion and Christianity.
-
Babies don't have any power to control what happens to them.
Neither does sperm. Seriously, I hope you've never ejaculated; all those poor babies.
There is no connection between abortion and Christianity.
Were you trying to be funny?
-
First of all, I don't think any sane person who is pro-choice would suggest that no precautions should be taken during sex, and any pregnancy that results should be aborted. All we are saying is that abortion should be available as a last resort in case the employed method of birth control is ineffective for whatever reason, or in a case where a woman is raped and has no choice in the matter.
Second of all, have any of you pro-lifers ever refused an offer for sex with a fertile member of the opposite sex? If so, then you're just as guilty of murder as abortion practitioners. Ever - for the males among you - seen a girl in a vulnerable position and chosen not to rape her? If that is the case, you had a perfect opportunity to save the life of a potential child, yet did not take it. Why not? If you have never been in such a position, would you commit rape in order to prevent murder if the opportunity presented itself?
-
why should an unborn "life" have more rights than the life that is supporting it?
-
Also, pro-life is an overly positive term for what you are. I would rather call you pro-control society, or pro-fascism. A society does not get to give its women orders to have a baby whether they want it or not. You are not pro-life, you are anti-abortion.
No, we are pro life because we don't want you guys killing babies. We want to preserve their life.
And I want to preserve the rights to a good life for potential mothers. Having a baby is great, but if you're not ready for it, or accidentally get pregnant, the technology exists to give you a second chance. Isn't that what you christians are always talking about, getting a second chance?
And you may correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, I've never killed a baby in my entire life.
But you support it. And women have the power to not have a baby. Babies don't have any power to control what happens to them.
Italics = Epic Fail. There is no connection between abortion and Christianity.
This is what I'm talking about with demonizing your enemy. I do not support the killing of babies. You tell me that one more time, if you want, but I do not support the killing of babies.
I also never said there was. I simply asked you a question which you refused to answer.
-
2. However, You can survive with one, but not without any (dialysis machines do not count as they are not inside you). So your argument is still nullified by factual information.
And the government forbids anyone with two kidneys selling one of them, a single kidney that is not required to live.
-
Also, pro-life is an overly positive term for what you are. I would rather call you pro-control society, or pro-fascism. A society does not get to give its women orders to have a baby whether they want it or not. You are not pro-life, you are anti-abortion.
No, we are pro life because we don't want you guys killing babies. We want to preserve their life.
And I want to preserve the rights to a good life for potential mothers. Having a baby is great, but if you're not ready for it, or accidentally get pregnant, the technology exists to give you a second chance. Isn't that what you christians are always talking about, getting a second chance?
And you may correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, I've never killed a baby in my entire life.
But you support it. And women have the power to not have a baby. Babies don't have any power to control what happens to them.
Italics = Epic Fail. There is no connection between abortion and Christianity.
This is what I'm talking about with demonizing your enemy. I do not support the killing of babies. You tell me that one more time, if you want, but I do not support the killing of babies.
I also never said there was. I simply asked you a question which you refused to answer.
You asked a dumb question which I refuse to answer
-
Also, pro-life is an overly positive term for what you are. I would rather call you pro-control society, or pro-fascism. A society does not get to give its women orders to have a baby whether they want it or not. You are not pro-life, you are anti-abortion.
No, we are pro life because we don't want you guys killing babies. We want to preserve their life.
And I want to preserve the rights to a good life for potential mothers. Having a baby is great, but if you're not ready for it, or accidentally get pregnant, the technology exists to give you a second chance. Isn't that what you christians are always talking about, getting a second chance?
And you may correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, I've never killed a baby in my entire life.
But you support it. And women have the power to not have a baby. Babies don't have any power to control what happens to them.
Italics = Epic Fail. There is no connection between abortion and Christianity.
This is what I'm talking about with demonizing your enemy. I do not support the killing of babies. You tell me that one more time, if you want, but I do not support the killing of babies.
I also never said there was. I simply asked you a question which you refused to answer.
You asked a dumb question which I refuse to answer
There are no dumb questions, only dumb answers.
-
*Sigh*
Etymology
From Latin parasitus < Greek παράσιτος (parasitos), ??person who eats at the table of another??) < noun use of adjective meaning "feeding beside," < παρα- (para-), ??beside??) + σίτος (sitos), ??food??).
[edit] Pronunciation
* IPA: /ˈp?rəˌsaɪt/
[edit] Noun
Singular
parasite
Plural
parasites
parasite (plural parasites)
1. (biology) A (generally undesirable) living organism that exists by stealing the resources needed by another living organism. See flea, tick, mite.
2. (pejorative) A useless person who always relies on other people's work and gives nothing back.
But please note that it says generally undesirable.
-
Also, pro-life is an overly positive term for what you are. I would rather call you pro-control society, or pro-fascism. A society does not get to give its women orders to have a baby whether they want it or not. You are not pro-life, you are anti-abortion.
No, we are pro life because we don't want you guys killing babies. We want to preserve their life.
And I want to preserve the rights to a good life for potential mothers. Having a baby is great, but if you're not ready for it, or accidentally get pregnant, the technology exists to give you a second chance. Isn't that what you christians are always talking about, getting a second chance?
And you may correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, I've never killed a baby in my entire life.
But you support it. And women have the power to not have a baby. Babies don't have any power to control what happens to them.
Italics = Epic Fail. There is no connection between abortion and Christianity.
This is what I'm talking about with demonizing your enemy. I do not support the killing of babies. You tell me that one more time, if you want, but I do not support the killing of babies.
I also never said there was. I simply asked you a question which you refused to answer.
You asked a dumb question which I refuse to answer
There are no dumb questions, only dumb answers.
Why is it that every single Atheist likes to suck dick
-
Because we don't have a fictitious dictator who forbids us to do it. :)
-
Because we don't have a fictitious dictator who forbids us to do it. :)
HaHa. You suck dick.
-
You metaphorically suck the dick of your imaginary friend. So you can't even find somebody that wants you to suck their dick. How does it feel to be so terribly alone?
-
You metaphorically suck the dick of your imaginary friend. So you can't even find somebody that wants you to suck their dick. How does it feel to be so terribly alone?
I don't suck dick though. Why would I want to find someone to suck their dick?
-
Why would I want to find someone to suck their dick?
Homosexual desires.
-
Also, pro-life is an overly positive term for what you are. I would rather call you pro-control society, or pro-fascism. A society does not get to give its women orders to have a baby whether they want it or not. You are not pro-life, you are anti-abortion.
No, we are pro life because we don't want you guys killing babies. We want to preserve their life.
And I want to preserve the rights to a good life for potential mothers. Having a baby is great, but if you're not ready for it, or accidentally get pregnant, the technology exists to give you a second chance. Isn't that what you christians are always talking about, getting a second chance?
And you may correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, I've never killed a baby in my entire life.
But you support it. And women have the power to not have a baby. Babies don't have any power to control what happens to them.
Italics = Epic Fail. There is no connection between abortion and Christianity.
This is what I'm talking about with demonizing your enemy. I do not support the killing of babies. You tell me that one more time, if you want, but I do not support the killing of babies.
I also never said there was. I simply asked you a question which you refused to answer.
You asked a dumb question which I refuse to answer
There are no dumb questions, only dumb answers.
Why is it that every single Atheist likes to suck dick
Only on a Friday night, I'm not gay
-
*Sigh*
Etymology
From Latin parasitus < Greek παράσιτος (parasitos), ??person who eats at the table of another??) < noun use of adjective meaning "feeding beside," < παρα- (para-), ??beside??) + σίτος (sitos), ??food??).
[edit] Pronunciation
* IPA: /ˈp?rəˌsaɪt/
[edit] Noun
Singular
parasite
Plural
parasites
parasite (plural parasites)
1. (biology) A (generally undesirable) living organism that exists by stealing the resources needed by another living organism. See flea, tick, mite.
2. (pejorative) A useless person who always relies on other people's work and gives nothing back.
But please note that it says generally undesirable.
Now tell me why a foetus isn't a parasite.
-
Why would I want to find someone to suck their dick?
Homosexual desires.
Haha now the two Christians are fighting!
-
Because we don't have a fictitious dictator who forbids us to do it. :)
HaHa. You suck dick.
What I do in the privacy of my bedroom is none of your concern, and you still didn't answer my question.
-
What I do in the privacy of my bedroom is none of your concern, and you still didn't answer my question.
What if you track IP's and infect forum-members with viruses using a computer?
-
What if I do that?
-
What if he whats?
-
What if I do that?
You could be arrested.
-
Since you didn't specify "between consenting adults", he's got you.
-
Since you didn't specify "between consenting adults", he's got you.
Murder-suicide.
-
Since you didn't specify "between consenting adults", he's got you.
Murder-suicide.
How are they going to arrest you for that?
-
Assisted suicide.
-
Assisted suicide.
The euthanasia debate continues...
-
Now that Switzerland has legalized it, they have suicide tourism. You aren't required to see if you have any treatable mental problems before-hand, so many government sanctions deaths now occur.
-
Cool story, bro.
-
Now that Switzerland has legalized it, they have suicide tourism. You aren't required to see if you have any treatable mental problems before-hand, so many government sanctions deaths now occur.
I still think it's better than amateurs failing to blow their brains out and becoming human vegetables for life.
-
Since you didn't specify "between consenting adults", he's got you.
I am always alone in my bedroom. :-\
-
I still think it's better than amateurs failing to blow their brains out and becoming human vegetables for life.
The lesser of two evils, of more then two options.
-
Some people don't want to live, Emir. If they want to commit suicide, they will still try. I say, make sure they don't fail and severely injure themselves.
-
I say, make sure they don't fail and severely injure themselves.
wut
-
Some people don't want to live, Emir. If they want to commit suicide, they will still try. I say, make sure they don't fail and severely injure themselves.
Most suicide survivours say they are glad they lived.
-
Not people who actually pulled the trigger, though.
-
Most suicide survivours say they are glad they lived.
Source?
-
The only way to prevent suicides is to make it punishable by the death penalty, it's the only deterrent those bastards understand.
-
Now that Switzerland has legalized it, they have suicide tourism. You aren't required to see if you have any treatable mental problems before-hand, so many government sanctions deaths now occur.
America's laws against suicide prevents all suicide. Which reminds me, I have a grave yard to visit soon.
-
It's cool that the pro-lifers decided not to address the previous posts, and we're now off topic.
-
Also, pro-life is an overly positive term for what you are. I would rather call you pro-control society, or pro-fascism. A society does not get to give its women orders to have a baby whether they want it or not. You are not pro-life, you are anti-abortion.
Ok I am anti-abortion, I have no problem with that.
-
The word fetus is the stage between the embryonic stage and birth, so therefor as far as your concerned, as long as a baby isn't born, it is not a baby since it is still a fetus.
It's not as far as I'm concerned, it is as far as the factual definition is concerned. You don't like it, take it up with doctors.
Well that is the factual definition.
You must hang out with the same people who think that delivering a baby feet first up to the "fetus'" nose and sticking a needle into its skull to "destroy the fetus". That way they can say that although it was late term it isn't a baby because it was never fully delivered. You might wanna study up on the subject before you start talking so stupid.
Apparently you don't get what attached means.
Guess not
Um, yah, the options are all available to the mother except for but the only one the pro-choice people are fighting for is the choice to have an abortion, I don't hear any Pro-Choice people running around yelling I'm pro-Choice and I thing women need be able to choose to give their baby up for adoption. No they are all fighting for the right to abort. That is a fact. so again, they should at least change the name to pro-abortion because the choice part is bs.
What the hell are you talking about? You can't just omit things to make your argument sound better. Pro-choice is a choice for all options. If a mother wants to have the baby and keep it, abort, or deliver and give it up once it's born, those are all part of pro-choice. Hell, she can decide to kill herself if she wants to, SHE HAS THAT CHOICE. What you are advocating is oppression.
Saying this other crap about being pro-abortion is just stupid; please show me some proof that people have berated mothers for having children and claimed to be pro-choice. I'd love to see that illogical mess.
Exactly my point, Pro-Choice people have not berated mothers for having children, they only fight for the right to have an abortion. They are not fighting for the choice to keep it, or to deliver and give it up once it's born. Please show me some proof that pro-choice people have fought for any of the other to options.
What about the rights of the baby?
Fetus. And it can have rights once it is it's own entity separate of the mother.
Again changing the terminology. Fine what about the rights of the Fetus
wow that was easy, and forcing unwanted pregnancies upon people is quite far from trying to force people to buy something or how to spend their time.
Well, it's worse in my book, seeing as buying things and most hobbies or activities don't cause pain and other problems for the person. So, you like the idea of putting someone through pain and discomfort, all for the sake of another being on the planet, versus abolishing that being that can't think, see, feel or choose something?
I agree and we can just use your words ---- Well, it's worse in my book also, seeing as buying things and most hobbies or activities don't cause pain and other problems for the person. So, you like the idea of putting someone (baby/Fetus) through pain, discomfort, & death, all for the sake of another being on the planet (mom), versus abolishing that being(baby, Fetus) that can think, see, feel and choose something?
Now first off, I am not at all for any abortion, but if a mother chooses to do so, All I ask is that they make the decision quickly. My main issue is the late term abortions and since nobody knows exactly when a life begins, I would choose to not agree with any. But in the case of the conversation I would at least go as far back as I know that the baby/Fetus thinks, sees, feels, and chooses something. A baby/Fetus cannot see at 23 weeks as its eyes are still sealed shut but they do still respond to light, they feel pain, they feel emotions , happy, sad, fear, and can be comforted by touch or sound when they are scared or in pain. And can make simple choices like what side they would prefer to lay on or if they want their foot rubbed. I know this because my daughter was born at 23 weeks and seeing this does affect my opinion. ok, so then there are the stages before this well you would have to go back to at least the 15 and 16th week of Gestation but even then they are knowen to react to sound, light, and they suck their thumb by choice so you can think it is either involentary or volentary reactions. (sorry about the spelling). The problem is that there is no scientific proof of when a fetus is a living human or a "parasite" (yes I saw that episode of House too and if you recall even he changed his mind at the end). I also understand what a lot of pro-lifers are trying to protect the early abortions but they need to at least shorten the term limit on when they can be performed.
As is common, your logic applies to all eggs and sperm. Why not attack people that practice safe sex? You're pro-life, you should want to preserve all potential life, just like a fetus.
Eggs and sperm do not contain enough chromesomes to be human and only contain 1 cell.
Then I guess we should just make it legal for people to randomly shoot people on the street because it isn't far from forcing what people should buy something or spend their time.
You're confusing rights with law and order (or at least the attempt). Almost anyone (barring physical or mental ailments) has the ability to kill someone; that is their right. They choose not to do so due to a variety of factors. They either believe it's wrong, or they simply don't want to burden themselves by either dying or going to jail for life. Abortion is no different.
Again, pro-choice is for all options. If you don't believe in pro-choice, I'd like you to follow my strict guidelines of what to eat, drink and say. Better yet, move to China.
Again, big difference, I don't see pro-life people telling pro-choice people what to eat, drink and say. And if due to the humanitarian rights that are in effect in China, I don't think a pro-lifer would prefer that area.
Still waiting for something accurate other then simple ramblings of liberal opinions. Not Facts
Scientific definition is a fact, why ignore it? Also, I'm not a liberal; I simply use definitions and facts to make conclusions and choices.
-
You complain that the people who want abortion to be legal are the ones who change the terminology. I find that rather ironic.
-
Well that is the factual definition.
Perfect, use it from now on.
Exactly my point, Pro-Choice people have not berated mothers for having children, they only fight for the right to have an abortion. They are not fighting for the choice to keep it, or to deliver and give it up once it's born. Please show me some proof that pro-choice people have fought for any of the other to options.
They do not fight actively for those options, such as to deliver a child because it is legal and doesn't infringe upon the rights of a person if they make that choice. Anti-abortion, on the other hand, does.
Saying someone must have a baby against their will, especially while maintaining a pro-life stance, is not only authoritarian but hypocritical as well.
Again changing the terminology. Fine what about the rights of the Fetus
I didn't change the terminology, you agreed with the definition. What rights do you think a parasitic entity should have? And why? Again, a pro-life stance is hypocritical.
So, you like the idea of putting someone (baby/Fetus) through pain, discomfort, & death, all for the sake of another being on the planet (mom), versus abolishing that being(baby, Fetus) that can think, see, feel and choose something?
So, it's fine to abort before such things occur?
Eggs and sperm do not contain enough chromesomes to be human and only contain 1 cell.
Arbitrary. Fetuses do not contain all features of a human at <insert week here>. I could make up a whole list of conditions.
Again, big difference, I don't see pro-life people telling pro-choice people what to eat, drink and say. And if due to the humanitarian rights that are in effect in China, I don't think a pro-lifer would prefer that area.
You're missing the point. Forcing someone to do something, no matter what it is, is forcing someone to do something.
-
Some people don't want to live, Emir. If they want to commit suicide, they will still try. I say, make sure they don't fail and severely injure themselves.
If you attempt suicide but fail, you can actually be tried for attempted murder. Or at least that's what my 7th grade teacher told me.
-
Your teacher was a moron. In some catholic countries, though, suicide attempts are punishable by law.
-
Your teacher was a moron. In some catholic countries, though, suicide attempts are punishable by law.
When did I say she wasn't?
-
He never said you did.
-
Some people don't want to live, Emir. If they want to commit suicide, they will still try. I say, make sure they don't fail and severely injure themselves.
If you attempt suicide but fail, you can actually be tried for attempted murder. Or at least that's what my 7th grade teacher told me.
Not exactly. Yes, suicide is illegal, but it's not something that you can to go to jail for. A court will normally order mandatory counseling for you.
-
Well that is the factual definition.
Perfect, use it from now on.
Fine, just as long as it is in agreement that a full term child at 40 weeks is also a fetus before it has been born because that is also the definition. And in that case as long as it is still a "fetus" you are ok with it being aborted.
Exactly my point, Pro-Choice people have not berated mothers for having children, they only fight for the right to have an abortion. They are not fighting for the choice to keep it, or to deliver and give it up once it's born. Please show me some proof that pro-choice people have fought for any of the other to options.
They do not fight actively for those options, such as to deliver a child because it is legal and doesn't infringe upon the rights of a person if they make that choice. Anti-abortion, on the other hand, does.
Saying someone must have a baby against their will, especially while maintaining a pro-life stance, is not only authoritarian but hypocritical as well.
Well saying someone must stop at stop signs and drive the speed limit is authoritarian and hypocritical as well.
Again changing the terminology. Fine what about the rights of the Fetus
I didn't change the terminology, you agreed with the definition. What rights do you think a parasitic entity should have? And why? Again, a pro-life stance is hypocritical.
Again changing the terminology, and again using a quote for "House". Now that you changed the term from baby, to parasitic entity. I am getting dizzy from the circles your speaking in.
So, you like the idea of putting someone (baby/Fetus) through pain, discomfort, & death, all for the sake of another being on the planet (mom), versus abolishing that being(baby, Fetus) that can think, see, feel and choose something?
So, it's fine to abort before such things occur?
Nope, I was just going off what you feel and as YOU stated in YOUR Quote in the last thread, it seems that you think THIS since you provided me with those stipulations. YOU stated that YOU feel that they cannot think, see , feel or choese something and I provided you proof that they do at 23 weeks. I like how you cut the quote off to serve your need, Next time you quote someone, you should provide the entire quote because that was as direct quote from you. This is getting funny. Please re-read the last 2 threads so you can rememer what your beliefs are.
Eggs and sperm do not contain enough chromesomes to be human and only contain 1 cell.
Arbitrary. Fetuses do not contain all features of a human at <insert week here>. I could make up a whole list of conditions.
Arbitrary? Last I heard, each only have 23 chromosomes. That to is a fact so you may want to consider that as you, and I quote "simply use definitions and facts to make conclusions and choices."
And I could give you factual proof that a Fetus does contain all features of a human at, 23 weeks, and at 18 weeks.
Again, big difference, I don't see pro-life people telling pro-choice people what to eat, drink and say. And if due to the humanitarian rights that are in effect in China, I don't think a pro-lifer would prefer that area.
You're missing the point. Forcing someone to do something, no matter what it is, is forcing someone to do something.
And you are missing the point also. Killing someone due to a change its terminology, no matter what it is, is killing someone.
-
Now you are ascribing characteristics to fetuses that they do not possess again. Stop it.
-
Now you are ascribing characteristics to fetuses that they do not possess again. Stop it.
You are striping characteristics from children. Stop it.
-
What characteristics am I taking away, then?
-
What characteristics am I taking away, then?
The ones you claimed he was ascribing.
-
Fine, just as long as it is in agreement that a full term child at 40 weeks is also a fetus before it has been born because that is also the definition. And in that case as long as it is still a "fetus" you are ok with it being aborted.
Personally, I'm actually okay with the death of anyone. In the case of abortion though, I believe that until a fetus is its own separate entity (umbilical cord cut), it does not deserve rights as an individual human, because it's not an individual.
Well saying someone must stop at stop signs and drive the speed limit is authoritarian and hypocritical as well.
Yes, it's authoritarian. No it's not hypocritical. I'm calling your stance hypocritical because just as a fertilized egg contributes to a potential human, so does sperm. For someone who is pro-life, all sperm should then be kept viable. Anyone who destroys any sperm is a murderer.
Again changing the terminology, and again using a quote for "House". Now that you changed the term from baby, to parasitic entity. I am getting dizzy from the circles your speaking in.
I haven't changed terminology, I simply cite similarities and equivalencies. And it wasn't from House. I came up with this stuff in high school (as have many people), long before House ever became an idea for a show.
Nope, I was just going off what you feel and as YOU stated in YOUR Quote in the last thread, it seems that you think THIS since you provided me with those stipulations. YOU stated that YOU feel that they cannot think, see , feel or choese something and I provided you proof that they do at 23 weeks. I like how you cut the quote off to serve your need, Next time you quote someone, you should provide the entire quote because that was as direct quote from you. This is getting funny. Please re-read the last 2 threads so you can rememer what your beliefs are.
I've stated my beliefs in the first reply above.
Arbitrary? Last I heard, each only have 23 chromosomes. That to is a fact so you may want to consider that as you, and I quote "simply use definitions and facts to make conclusions and choices."
It's arbitrary in that you make chromosomes the basis for being a human versus countless other things.
And you are missing the point also. Killing someone due to a change its terminology, no matter what it is, is killing someone.
I said you can call it killing someone, I just like using the most accurate word to describe this "someone." Calling it a person and applying rights is just an appeal to emotion, rather than a valid argument.
-
What characteristics am I taking away, then?
The ones you claimed he was ascribing.
Wow. You truly are an idiot. You don't even know what I'm talking about, and you still disagree with me. You might just as well leave if you don't even listen to the other side of the debate.
-
Bravo. Your lack of wit fails both to amuse and surprise me. At least I read your posts before I take a stance against your moronic views.
-
I suffer in silence.
-
Now you are ascribing characteristics to fetuses that they do not possess again. Stop it.
Don't want to burst your bubble but those are factual characteristics. Go to a NICU as I have.
-
You were born early?
-
Now you are ascribing characteristics to fetuses that they do not possess again. Stop it.
Don't want to burst your bubble but those are factual characteristics. Go to a NICU as I have.
Premature baby != Fetus
-
Fine, just as long as it is in agreement that a full term child at 40 weeks is also a fetus before it has been born because that is also the definition. And in that case as long as it is still a "fetus" you are ok with it being aborted.
Personally, I'm actually okay with the death of anyone. In the case of abortion though, I believe that until a fetus is its own separate entity (umbilical cord cut), it does not deserve rights as an individual human, because it's not an individual.
ok then that is your belief.
Well saying someone must stop at stop signs and drive the speed limit is authoritarian and hypocritical as well.
Yes, it's authoritarian. No it's not hypocritical. I'm calling your stance hypocritical because just as a fertilized egg contributes to a potential human, so does sperm. For someone who is pro-life, all sperm should then be kept viable. Anyone who destroys any sperm is a murderer.
nope its seems it is your opinion that that is what a pro-life person thinks. And again you are falling away from your fact finding to draw conclusions and only going by YOUR opionions. I can see that this string is totally based on your opinion rather the fact. Again I'm ok with that as long as you admit it is your opinion.
Again changing the terminology, and again using a quote for "House". Now that you changed the term from baby, to parasitic entity. I am getting dizzy from the circles your speaking in.
I haven't changed terminology, I simply cite similarities and equivalencies. And it wasn't from House. I came up with this stuff in high school (as have many people), long before House ever became an idea for a show.
Again another change in terminology to discribe your change in terminology. Another full circle.
Nope, I was just going off what you feel and as YOU stated in YOUR Quote in the last thread, it seems that you think THIS since you provided me with those stipulations. YOU stated that YOU feel that they cannot think, see , feel or choese something and I provided you proof that they do at 23 weeks. I like how you cut the quote off to serve your need, Next time you quote someone, you should provide the entire quote because that was as direct quote from you. This is getting funny. Please re-read the last 2 threads so you can rememer what your beliefs are.
I've stated my beliefs in the first reply above.
'nuff said thus proving my point
Arbitrary? Last I heard, each only have 23 chromosomes. That to is a fact so you may want to consider that as you, and I quote "simply use definitions and facts to make conclusions and choices."
It's arbitrary in that you make chromosomes the basis for being a human versus countless other things.
Ok find me a human that has only 23 chromosomes, or a human cell that begins to divide with only 23 chromosomes
And you are missing the point also. Killing someone due to a change its terminology, no matter what it is, is killing someone.
I said you can call it killing someone, I just like using the most accurate word to describe this "someone." Calling it a person and applying rights is just an appeal to emotion, rather than a valid argument.
Calling it the most accurate word to describe this "someone" is again, based on your opinion instead of fact.
-
You were born early?
No my 1st daughter was born at 23 weeks gestation and my second daughter was born at 30 weeks gestation.
-
Whoah. That is rather early. Anyway, can you name a fetus who is a person?
-
You were born early?
No my 1st daughter was born at 23 weeks gestation and my second daughter was born at 30 weeks gestation.
Due to the bolded parts, they were no longer foetuses.
-
sure, both my daughers were. My oldest who is now in second grade actually has slight memories of being in the hospital. That sounds hard to believe but it is actually quite common. Now you can see my view. I cannot speak for a fetus born before 23 weeks but I have absolutely no doubt that a 23 weeker is a fully developed human.
-
You were born early?
No my 1st daughter was born at 23 weeks gestation and my second daughter was born at 30 weeks gestation.
Due to the bolded parts, they were no longer foetuses.
Again opinion, and based on how this entire string started, the question was asked if you would save a trey full of fetus' well I guess they were not fetus' since they were born also.
-
sure, both my daughers were. My oldest who is now in second grade actually has slight memories of being in the hospital. That sounds hard to believe but it is actually quite common. Now you can see my view. I cannot speak for a fetus born before 23 weeks but I have absolutely no doubt that a 23 weeker is a fully developed human.
Human development ends after 23 weeks in the womb? I was under the impression people continued growing until about their late teens.
-
You were born early?
No my 1st daughter was born at 23 weeks gestation and my second daughter was born at 30 weeks gestation.
Due to the bolded parts, they were no longer foetuses.
Again opinion, and based on how this entire string started, the question was asked if you would save a trey full of fetus' well I guess they were not fetus' since they were born also.
The question was poorly worded. The concept is what matters here.
"A fetus (or foetus or f?tus) is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate, after the embryonic stage and before birth."
-
sure, both my daughers were. My oldest who is now in second grade actually has slight memories of being in the hospital. That sounds hard to believe but it is actually quite common. Now you can see my view. I cannot speak for a fetus born before 23 weeks but I have absolutely no doubt that a 23 weeker is a fully developed human.
Human development ends after 23 weeks in the womb? I was under the impression people continued growing until about their late teens.
Fully developed human
That has to be one of the dumbest questions I've heard but I'll play along with it.
-
You were born early?
No my 1st daughter was born at 23 weeks gestation and my second daughter was born at 30 weeks gestation.
Due to the bolded parts, they were no longer foetuses.
Again opinion, and based on how this entire string started, the question was asked if you would save a trey full of fetus' well I guess they were not fetus' since they were born also.
The question was poorly worded. The concept is what matters here.
"A fetus (or foetus or f?tus) is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate, after the embryonic stage and before birth."
Thank you, I already posted the exact example 2 pages ago.
So whats your point other then dragging this along. before you answer please go back to page 2 to complete the circle you are attempting to start.
-
You said the defining fetus was a matter of opinion. ::)
Due to the bolded parts, they were no longer foetuses.
Again opinion[...]
-
You said the defining fetus was a matter of opinion. ::)
Due to the bolded parts, they were no longer foetuses.
Again opinion[...]
in that quote it was his opinion. so
-
Wait.. It was his opinion, that because your daughters were born they were no longer fetuses? That sounds like a factual analysis to me.
-
Ignore dark knight. He's just a troll.
-
ok then that is your belief.
Sure, which are backed by factual definitions. To deny my beliefs is to deny those factual definitions.
nope its seems it is your opinion that that is what a pro-life person thinks.
It's not my opinion, that's how logic works. Either you don't think all potential life is sacred, or you do. This isn't a buffet. Picking and choosing conditions is illogical and you're just wasting everyone's time here.
Again another change in terminology to discribe your change in terminology. Another full circle.
I haven't changed anything...perhaps reading would help you.
Ok find me a human that has only 23 chromosomes, or a human cell that begins to divide with only 23 chromosomes
Find me a human that wasn't attached to someone else in its first week.
Calling it the most accurate word to describe this "someone" is again, based on your opinion instead of fact.
Nope, factual definitions are used.
I'm gonna be with Wendy on this one. No one can be this stupid, you must be a troll. I probably will not reply further.
-
Ignore dark knight. He's just a troll.
Thank you thank you thank you.
-
If your goal is not to engage in serious discussion, then yes, I would consider it a win as well.
-
If your goal is not to engage in serious discussion, then yes, I would consider it a win as well.
Umm that was a serious discussion, and I am being called a troll. The guy busts out with "well I believe" in his answer, I come back with "thats your opionion" And I am called a troll. Whatever. You as well as anybody knows that once the name calling begins, that is usually when that person is at their wits end. Actually I was in the process of editing my remark to you because you have been cool with the discussion. the others were just coming up with answers that had no direction but their personal beliefs and then in the same sentence they state it as fact. At least I give my source and explain my reason for why I call something fact and something belief. Basiclly disagreeing just to disagree.
-
If your goal is not to engage in serious discussion, then yes, I would consider it a win as well.
Umm that was a serious discussion, and I am being called a troll. The guy busts out with "well I believe" in his answer, I come back with "thats your opionion" And I am called a troll. Whatever. You as well as anybody knows that once the name calling begins, that is usually when that person is at their wits end. Actually I was in the process of editing my remark to you because you have been cool with the discussion. the others were just coming up with answers that had no direction but their personal beliefs and then in the same sentence they state it as fact. At least I give my source and explain my reason for why I call something fact and something belief. Basiclly disagreeing just to disagree.
All of your answers (at least on that I've read in this thread, feel free to provide examples if I'm wrong) have been closed, killing instead of perpetuating the debate. Replying with "that's your opinion" is pretty much like saying " fuck it, I'm done debating" around these parts. And you did, and were called on it. Saying agree to disagree is a copout too. This section is called religion and philosohpy not fact and definitive. Philosophy is personal belief, disregarding it is counterproductive to the discussion.
But that's just my opinion ;)
-
ok then that is your belief.
Sure, which are backed by factual definitions. To deny my beliefs is to deny those factual definitions.
As are my Beliefs. And as I stated, I am ok with that.
nope its seems it is your opinion that that is what a pro-life person thinks.
It's not my opinion, that's how logic works. Either you don't think all potential life is sacred, or you do. This isn't a buffet. Picking and choosing conditions is illogical and you're just wasting everyone's time here.
Then you are just being fickle. You can honestly say that Pro-lifers are supposted to be fighting for the life of Sperm and eggs. Now who is wasting everyone's time here.
Again another change in terminology to discribe your change in terminology. Another full circle.
I haven't changed anything...perhaps reading would help you.
Just read it again, and getting dizzy.
Ok find me a human that has only 23 chromosomes, or a human cell that begins to divide with only 23 chromosomes
Find me a human that wasn't attached to someone else in its first week.
Well I have trouble with your definitions so I guess I better as, first week after conception? or First week after Birth?
Calling it the most accurate word to describe this "someone" is again, based on your opinion instead of fact.
Nope, factual definitions are used.
Again opinions
I'm gonna be with Wendy on this one. No one can be this stupid, you must be a troll. I probably will not reply further.
Thank you. Once the name calling begins you know its a win. Feel free to reply or not reply, whatever, your answers were fickle and based soley on opinion, and you base your opinion on definitions of your own predetermained facts found online and very general at best. Until you spend time in a NICU unit or on bed rest with a fetal monitor on your body your opinions will be just that.
-
Ah, so you're not a troll, just a thread killer. Equally as redundant.
-
If your goal is not to engage in serious discussion, then yes, I would consider it a win as well.
Umm that was a serious discussion, and I am being called a troll. The guy busts out with "well I believe" in his answer, I come back with "thats your opionion" And I am called a troll. Whatever. You as well as anybody knows that once the name calling begins, that is usually when that person is at their wits end. Actually I was in the process of editing my remark to you because you have been cool with the discussion. the others were just coming up with answers that had no direction but their personal beliefs and then in the same sentence they state it as fact. At least I give my source and explain my reason for why I call something fact and something belief. Basiclly disagreeing just to disagree.
All of your answers (at least on that I've read in this thread, feel free to provide examples if I'm wrong) have been closed, killing instead of perpetuating the debate. Replying with "that's your opinion" is pretty much like saying " fuck it, I'm done debating" around these parts. And you did, and were called on it. Saying agree to disagree is a copout too. This section is called religion and philosohpy not fact and definitive. Philosophy is personal belief, disregarding it is counterproductive to the discussion.
But that's just my opinion ;)
That is fine to think that, and towards the end of the string it was getting that way, I was sick of saying the same thing over and over and it was getting to be just that. Generalized answers that State "I believe therfor" in them. And to be honest with you, I was running into people that were disagreeing just to disagree. If I come with fact and he comes with fact because it is my opinion. Well there isn't much further to go. I was just talking with with a guy who decided to tell me what my position was, and also was being so fickle that he said that I am a pro-lifer so I also should be fighthing for the life of Sperm and eggs. Now come on......
He then finishes with a "find me a human that isn't attached in its first week. I cannot answer that, why? because he didn't tell me if it is the first week of conception, or after it is born or what. The guy goes off telling me this whole time that a fetus isn't human and now it is, he tells me he is okay with killing at any age so obviously his opionion on abortion wouldn't matter anyways.
I am fine with discussion but if you read the last few pages you can see how fickle it was getting.
-
If your goal is not to engage in serious discussion, then yes, I would consider it a win as well.
Umm that was a serious discussion, and I am being called a troll. The guy busts out with "well I believe" in his answer, I come back with "thats your opionion" And I am called a troll. Whatever. You as well as anybody knows that once the name calling begins, that is usually when that person is at their wits end. Actually I was in the process of editing my remark to you because you have been cool with the discussion. the others were just coming up with answers that had no direction but their personal beliefs and then in the same sentence they state it as fact. At least I give my source and explain my reason for why I call something fact and something belief. Basiclly disagreeing just to disagree.
Well, I called you a troll not because I'm at my wits end, but because your arguments are appeals to emotion and you refuse to listen to reason.
-
If your goal is not to engage in serious discussion, then yes, I would consider it a win as well.
Umm that was a serious discussion, and I am being called a troll. The guy busts out with "well I believe" in his answer, I come back with "thats your opionion" And I am called a troll. Whatever. You as well as anybody knows that once the name calling begins, that is usually when that person is at their wits end. Actually I was in the process of editing my remark to you because you have been cool with the discussion. the others were just coming up with answers that had no direction but their personal beliefs and then in the same sentence they state it as fact. At least I give my source and explain my reason for why I call something fact and something belief. Basiclly disagreeing just to disagree.
Well, I called you a troll not because I'm at my wits end, but because your arguments are appeals to emotion and you refuse to listen to reason.
I understand and no big deal. My issue is that you have book smart people, who base their opinion on something they read and rather then experience. They take a literal fact and don't explore if further. We are not androids and emotion is apart of this discussion. I lived first had with these issues. I saw a baby that was operated on while it was in the womb and survived after it was delivered 15 weeks later. The definitions I was given by him were based soley off of one persons belief also.
I do listen to reason. He didn't, Reason is something somebody does, weighing all the facts and Unfortunatly he was spouting off factoids based on his beliefs and opinions (by is own admission) and some definitions he found probably on wiki.
Its ok to disagree but to be fickle. But Come on.. I do admit I do get emotional on this subject. And you are correct on that, but I base my facts on Book, inet, and life experience. And I have spent a lot of time I NICU's.
-
Thank you. Once the name calling begins you know its a win. Feel free to reply or not reply, whatever, your answers were fickle and based soley on opinion, and you base your opinion on definitions of your own predetermained facts found online and very general at best. Until you spend time in a NICU unit or on bed rest with a fetal monitor on your body your opinions will be just that.
Definitions are not opinion.
-
Was he talking about my post?! You fucking moron, Darkknight, it's the dictionary definition!
-
And I have spent a lot of time I NICU's.
I guess you didn't get the subliminal message in that telling you to stop breeding, your genes suck.
-
Thank you. Once the name calling begins you know its a win. Feel free to reply or not reply, whatever, your answers were fickle and based soley on opinion, and you base your opinion on definitions of your own predetermained facts found online and very general at best. Until you spend time in a NICU unit or on bed rest with a fetal monitor on your body your opinions will be just that.
Definitions are not opinion.
They are if you choose one definition over another.
-
And I have spent a lot of time I NICU's.
I guess you didn't get the subliminal message in that telling you to stop breeding, your genes suck.
To correct you again it was my genes that kept a 23 weeker alive over the 90% that died that year. And not that it is any of your business but her mother was fighting cancer at the time. Before you start passing judgement and trying to talk big, why don't you leave your bedroom, stop playing World of Warcraft and get a girlfriend or something. Start to live life instead of hiding in your little virtual world behind your avitar. Because in the real world, life doesn't care about definitions or opinions. If your in a real situation that a doctor asks you to choose between a baby, human, parasite, whatever you want call it and a person you love. And you are in that situation for real, you too would do a little soul searching, not logic.
-
Was he talking about my post?! You fucking moron, Darkknight, it's the dictionary definition!
Nope, not referring to your post.
-
They are if you choose one definition over another.
Well, you have to choose the one that's of the right context. That involves more facts though.
-
They are if you choose one definition over another.
Well, you have to choose the one that's of the right context. That involves more facts though.
And there you have it.
-
Was he talking about my post?! You fucking moron, Darkknight, it's the dictionary definition!
Great debate technique! I now respect you even more.
-
And there you have it.
So, you agree that it's fact now? Make up your mind.
-
And I have spent a lot of time I NICU's.
I guess you didn't get the subliminal message in that telling you to stop breeding, your genes suck.
Says the person who believes the Earth is flat.
-
And I have spent a lot of time I NICU's.
I guess you didn't get the subliminal message in that telling you to stop breeding, your genes suck.
Says the person who believes the Earth is flat.
When did I say I believed the earth was flat?
You people need to seriously stop making assumptions about me.
They are if you choose one definition over another.
Well, you have to choose the one that's of the right context. That involves more facts though.
And there you have it.
There's only one definition for fetus and baby, though. So at that point it's no longer opinion, nor do you have a choice.
You lose.
-
Says the person who believes the Earth is flat.
Wait what? Unless I'm mistaken Divito doesn't take that position. Simplified, he asserts that everything is possible and things are basically more likely than others. To claim something is a certain way eliminates a small percentage of possibility for alternatives and thus is inaccurate and stupid.
-
Says the person who believes the Earth is flat.
Wait what? Unless I'm mistaken Divito doesn't take that position. Simplified, he asserts that everything is possible and things are basically more likely than others. To claim something is a certain way eliminates a small percentage of possibility for alternatives and thus is inaccurate and stupid.
Says the person who believes the Earth is flat.
Okay, I'm trolling
-
KingMan believes that a human sacrifice performed centuries ago will absolve him of the responsibility of past actions so long as he maintains that the person who was killed was the son of God and also his father and a ghost simultaneously.
He's a troll.
-
Says the person who believes the Earth is flat.
Wait what? Unless I'm mistaken Divito doesn't take that position. Simplified, he asserts that everything is possible and things are basically more likely than others. To claim something is a certain way eliminates a small percentage of possibility for alternatives and thus is inaccurate and stupid.
Since when am I divito?
-
Says the person who believes the Earth is flat.
Wait what? Unless I'm mistaken Divito doesn't take that position. Simplified, he asserts that everything is possible and things are basically more likely than others. To claim something is a certain way eliminates a small percentage of possibility for alternatives and thus is inaccurate and stupid.
Since when am I divito?
Holy shit. uh...Since I got 2 hours of sleep? :-\
Apologies good sir.
-
Says the person who believes the Earth is flat.
Wait what? Unless I'm mistaken Divito doesn't take that position. Simplified, he asserts that everything is possible and things are basically more likely than others. To claim something is a certain way eliminates a small percentage of possibility for alternatives and thus is inaccurate and stupid.
Since when am I divito?
Holy shit. uh...Since I got 2 hours of sleep? :-\
Apologies good sir.
This is why friends don't let friend post sans sleep.
-
They did this to me. The last LAN party destroyed me. I must have had a gallon of Mountain Dew.
...Still feel sick.
-
They did this to me. The last LAN party destroyed me. I must have had a gallon of Mountain Dew.
...Still feel sick.
Try doing that with weed, where you want to sleep but they mountain dew says no.
-
Try doing that with weed, where you want to sleep but they mountain dew says no.
Mountain dew doesn't affect my perception of reality, just my stomach. ;)
I see no point.
-
Back on topic:
(http://i36.tinypic.com/351s9ig.jpg)
-
Try doing that with weed, where you want to sleep but they mountain dew says no.
Mountain dew doesn't affect my perception of reality, just my stomach. ;)
I see no point.
? I just meant the being tired and not being able to sleep. Weed doesn't change your perception of reality.
-
umm. this thread has gone off topic quite a bit.
Answer to the question: I could not give a real answer unless I was in that dilemma. I would have a feeling of remorse no matter what.
But anyways. Pro Choice fo real.
If your pro life, quit jerking it, using condoms, and any form of birth control.
because each sex cell is a potential baby. And wasting it is killing potential babies.
-
And there you have it.
So, you agree that it's fact now? Make up your mind.
No I was agreeing that if you chose a fact or definition over other facts and definitions based on what you percieve as the correct answer then the fact or definition is now based on the choice or opinion of the person instead of a straight fact.
wow my head hurts from that one.
-
Back on topic:
(http://i36.tinypic.com/351s9ig.jpg)
Now that is funny.
-
And I have spent a lot of time I NICU's.
I guess you didn't get the subliminal message in that telling you to stop breeding, your genes suck.
Says the person who believes the Earth is flat.
When did I say I believed the earth was flat?
You people need to seriously stop making assumptions about me.
They are if you choose one definition over another.
Well, you have to choose the one that's of the right context. That involves more facts though.
And there you have it.
There's only one definition for fetus and baby, though. So at that point it's no longer opinion, nor do you have a choice.
You lose.
The string isn't about the definition for fetus, it was a discussion on if it was right to destroy a fetus, particularly a late term fetus. It was found that some people think that it is ok to destroy a late term fetus even at 39 weeks due to its definition only. That is were our main difference is.
-
And I have spent a lot of time I NICU's.
I guess you didn't get the subliminal message in that telling you to stop breeding, your genes suck.
Says the person who believes the Earth is flat.
When did I say I believed the earth was flat?
You people need to seriously stop making assumptions about me.
They are if you choose one definition over another.
Well, you have to choose the one that's of the right context. That involves more facts though.
And there you have it.
There's only one definition for fetus and baby, though. So at that point it's no longer opinion, nor do you have a choice.
You lose.
The string isn't about the definition for fetus, it was a discussion on if it was right to destroy a fetus, particularly a late term fetus. It was found that some people think that it is ok to destroy a late term fetus even at 39 weeks due to its definition only. That is were our main difference is.
So you are trying to infer that time takes part in what defines a fetus and a baby?
-
The string isn't about the definition for fetus, it was a discussion on if it was right to destroy a fetus, particularly a late term fetus. It was found that some people think that it is ok to destroy a late term fetus even at 39 weeks due to its definition only. That is were our main difference is.
[/quote]
So you are trying to infer that time takes part in what defines a fetus and a baby?
[/quote]
No, again definition is not the objective. The issue is that during the string it was stated that any fetus is ok to abort. And that if the Fetus is 11 weeks old or 40 weeks old has no bearing, as long as it is a fetus, it is ok to abort. To base a decision off of that is blind. The difference between a 10 week old fetus and a 40 week fetus is huge.
-
Since when am I divito?
Since you entered a dream.
-
No, again definition is not the objective. The issue is that during the string it was stated that any fetus is ok to abort. And that if the Fetus is 11 weeks old or 40 weeks old has no bearing, as long as it is a fetus, it is ok to abort. To base a decision off of that is blind. The difference between a 10 week old fetus and a 40 week fetus is huge.
Except for the fact that it's still a fetus.
-
No, again definition is not the objective. The issue is that during the string it was stated that any fetus is ok to abort. And that if the Fetus is 11 weeks old or 40 weeks old has no bearing, as long as it is a fetus, it is ok to abort. To base a decision off of that is blind. The difference between a 10 week old fetus and a 40 week fetus is huge.
Except for the fact that it's still a fetus.
Yup it is a fetus, and since it is still a fetus, even at 40 weeks, you feel it is ok to still abort?
-
No, again definition is not the objective. The issue is that during the string it was stated that any fetus is ok to abort. And that if the Fetus is 11 weeks old or 40 weeks old has no bearing, as long as it is a fetus, it is ok to abort. To base a decision off of that is blind. The difference between a 10 week old fetus and a 40 week fetus is huge.
Except for the fact that it's still a fetus.
Yup it is a fetus, and since it is still a fetus, even at 40 weeks, you feel it is ok to still abort?
I do, since by definition it's still a parasite.
-
I don't but only to punish people for being so damn indecisive. Other than that, I don't care.
-
No, again definition is not the objective. The issue is that during the string it was stated that any fetus is ok to abort. And that if the Fetus is 11 weeks old or 40 weeks old has no bearing, as long as it is a fetus, it is ok to abort. To base a decision off of that is blind. The difference between a 10 week old fetus and a 40 week fetus is huge.
Except for the fact that it's still a fetus.
Yup it is a fetus, and since it is still a fetus, even at 40 weeks, you feel it is ok to still abort?
I do, since by definition it's still a parasite.
ok, so let me get this straight I'll play along some more. So, say a mother has twins. The first baby is delivered, umbilical cord cut and laying in her arms. The second is still not delivered yet. The mother decides she doesn't want the babys and smothers the first baby and then has the doctor abort the second baby. Was murder committed 1 time, 2 times or not at all?
-
Once, smothering the baby already born is murder.
-
No, again definition is not the objective. The issue is that during the string it was stated that any fetus is ok to abort. And that if the Fetus is 11 weeks old or 40 weeks old has no bearing, as long as it is a fetus, it is ok to abort. To base a decision off of that is blind. The difference between a 10 week old fetus and a 40 week fetus is huge.
Except for the fact that it's still a fetus.
Yup it is a fetus, and since it is still a fetus, even at 40 weeks, you feel it is ok to still abort?
I do, since by definition it's still a parasite.
ok, so let me get this straight I'll play along some more. So, say a mother has twins. The first baby is delivered, umbilical cord cut and laying in her arms. The second is still not delivered yet. The mother decides she doesn't want the babys and smothers the first baby and then has the doctor abort the second baby. Was murder committed 1 time, 2 times or not at all?
Your personal text pisses me off for some reason.
-
No, again definition is not the objective. The issue is that during the string it was stated that any fetus is ok to abort. And that if the Fetus is 11 weeks old or 40 weeks old has no bearing, as long as it is a fetus, it is ok to abort. To base a decision off of that is blind. The difference between a 10 week old fetus and a 40 week fetus is huge.
Except for the fact that it's still a fetus.
Yup it is a fetus, and since it is still a fetus, even at 40 weeks, you feel it is ok to still abort?
I do, since by definition it's still a parasite.
ok, so let me get this straight I'll play along some more. So, say a mother has twins. The first baby is delivered, umbilical cord cut and laying in her arms. The second is still not delivered yet. The mother decides she doesn't want the babys and smothers the first baby and then has the doctor abort the second baby. Was murder committed 1 time, 2 times or not at all?
I doubt that any sane woman will abort in the delivery room. If I recall, there are also laws which prevent third term abortions.
Please, try again.
-
No, again definition is not the objective. The issue is that during the string it was stated that any fetus is ok to abort. And that if the Fetus is 11 weeks old or 40 weeks old has no bearing, as long as it is a fetus, it is ok to abort. To base a decision off of that is blind. The difference between a 10 week old fetus and a 40 week fetus is huge.
Except for the fact that it's still a fetus.
Yup it is a fetus, and since it is still a fetus, even at 40 weeks, you feel it is ok to still abort?
I do, since by definition it's still a parasite.
ok, so let me get this straight I'll play along some more. So, say a mother has twins. The first baby is delivered, umbilical cord cut and laying in her arms. The second is still not delivered yet. The mother decides she doesn't want the babys and smothers the first baby and then has the doctor abort the second baby. Was murder committed 1 time, 2 times or not at all?
Under U.S. law twice. 3rd trimester abortions are illegal fuckwit.
-
No, again definition is not the objective. The issue is that during the string it was stated that any fetus is ok to abort. And that if the Fetus is 11 weeks old or 40 weeks old has no bearing, as long as it is a fetus, it is ok to abort. To base a decision off of that is blind. The difference between a 10 week old fetus and a 40 week fetus is huge.
Except for the fact that it's still a fetus.
Yup it is a fetus, and since it is still a fetus, even at 40 weeks, you feel it is ok to still abort?
I do, since by definition it's still a parasite.
ok, so let me get this straight I'll play along some more. So, say a mother has twins. The first baby is delivered, umbilical cord cut and laying in her arms. The second is still not delivered yet. The mother decides she doesn't want the babys and smothers the first baby and then has the doctor abort the second baby. Was murder committed 1 time, 2 times or not at all?
Under U.S. law twice. 3rd trimester abortions are illegal fuckwit.
I know that, the question is on a basis of his idea that a fetus isn't a baby till it is born and that it is ok to abort. It is a moral question dumbass. read the string.
-
No, again definition is not the objective. The issue is that during the string it was stated that any fetus is ok to abort. And that if the Fetus is 11 weeks old or 40 weeks old has no bearing, as long as it is a fetus, it is ok to abort. To base a decision off of that is blind. The difference between a 10 week old fetus and a 40 week fetus is huge.
Except for the fact that it's still a fetus.
Yup it is a fetus, and since it is still a fetus, even at 40 weeks, you feel it is ok to still abort?
I do, since by definition it's still a parasite.
ok, so let me get this straight I'll play along some more. So, say a mother has twins. The first baby is delivered, umbilical cord cut and laying in her arms. The second is still not delivered yet. The mother decides she doesn't want the babys and smothers the first baby and then has the doctor abort the second baby. Was murder committed 1 time, 2 times or not at all?
I doubt that any sane woman will abort in the delivery room. If I recall, there are also laws which prevent third term abortions.
Please, try again.
This is a moral question dumbass, I is asked because of the answers that you gave me that any fetus can be aborted and that your ok with it.
Nice try.
-
You didn't ask a moral question. You asked how many murders took place, which is defined by law.
-
If she was going to abort, again, she wouldn't do it in the third trimester. Also, she wouldn't kill the born child, she would give it up for adoption instead if she didn't want them.
Learn to use some logic, man.
But, to answer your ridiculous scenario, by definition of the law and not morals, two murders would have been committed. I cannot give you a moral answer because all logic prevents such a scenario from occurring.
Also, it's called a thread, retard, not a string.
-
Fine, just as long as it is in agreement that a full term child at 40 weeks is also a fetus before it has been born because that is also the definition. And in that case as long as it is still a "fetus" you are ok with it being aborted.
Personally, I'm actually okay with the death of anyone. In the case of abortion though, I believe that until a fetus is its own separate entity (umbilical cord cut), it does not deserve rights as an individual human, because it's not an individual.
Well saying someone must stop at stop signs and drive the speed limit is authoritarian and hypocritical as well.
Yes, it's authoritarian. No it's not hypocritical. I'm calling your stance hypocritical because just as a fertilized egg contributes to a potential human, so does sperm. For someone who is pro-life, all sperm should then be kept viable. Anyone who destroys any sperm is a murderer.
Again changing the terminology, and again using a quote for "House". Now that you changed the term from baby, to parasitic entity. I am getting dizzy from the circles your speaking in.
I haven't changed terminology, I simply cite similarities and equivalencies. And it wasn't from House. I came up with this stuff in high school (as have many people), long before House ever became an idea for a show.
Nope, I was just going off what you feel and as YOU stated in YOUR Quote in the last thread, it seems that you think THIS since you provided me with those stipulations. YOU stated that YOU feel that they cannot think, see , feel or choese something and I provided you proof that they do at 23 weeks. I like how you cut the quote off to serve your need, Next time you quote someone, you should provide the entire quote because that was as direct quote from you. This is getting funny. Please re-read the last 2 threads so you can rememer what your beliefs are.
I've stated my beliefs in the first reply above.
Arbitrary? Last I heard, each only have 23 chromosomes. That to is a fact so you may want to consider that as you, and I quote "simply use definitions and facts to make conclusions and choices."
It's arbitrary in that you make chromosomes the basis for being a human versus countless other things.
And you are missing the point also. Killing someone due to a change its terminology, no matter what it is, is killing someone.
I said you can call it killing someone, I just like using the most accurate word to describe this "someone." Calling it a person and applying rights is just an appeal to emotion, rather than a valid argument.
nuff said..... again
-
Fine, just as long as it is in agreement that a full term child at 40 weeks is also a fetus before it has been born because that is also the definition. And in that case as long as it is still a "fetus" you are ok with it being aborted.
Personally, I'm actually okay with the death of anyone. In the case of abortion though, I believe that until a fetus is its own separate entity (umbilical cord cut), it does not deserve rights as an individual human, because it's not an individual.
Well saying someone must stop at stop signs and drive the speed limit is authoritarian and hypocritical as well.
Yes, it's authoritarian. No it's not hypocritical. I'm calling your stance hypocritical because just as a fertilized egg contributes to a potential human, so does sperm. For someone who is pro-life, all sperm should then be kept viable. Anyone who destroys any sperm is a murderer.
Again changing the terminology, and again using a quote for "House". Now that you changed the term from baby, to parasitic entity. I am getting dizzy from the circles your speaking in.
I haven't changed terminology, I simply cite similarities and equivalencies. And it wasn't from House. I came up with this stuff in high school (as have many people), long before House ever became an idea for a show.
Nope, I was just going off what you feel and as YOU stated in YOUR Quote in the last thread, it seems that you think THIS since you provided me with those stipulations. YOU stated that YOU feel that they cannot think, see , feel or choese something and I provided you proof that they do at 23 weeks. I like how you cut the quote off to serve your need, Next time you quote someone, you should provide the entire quote because that was as direct quote from you. This is getting funny. Please re-read the last 2 threads so you can rememer what your beliefs are.
I've stated my beliefs in the first reply above.
Arbitrary? Last I heard, each only have 23 chromosomes. That to is a fact so you may want to consider that as you, and I quote "simply use definitions and facts to make conclusions and choices."
It's arbitrary in that you make chromosomes the basis for being a human versus countless other things.
And you are missing the point also. Killing someone due to a change its terminology, no matter what it is, is killing someone.
I said you can call it killing someone, I just like using the most accurate word to describe this "someone." Calling it a person and applying rights is just an appeal to emotion, rather than a valid argument.
nuff said..... again
So you agree with divito that you are merely denying facts, replacing them with an appeal to emotion to absolve yourself from having to actually argue the facts that in the case of pregnancy, a woman has the right to choose if she wants to abort or not?
Red letter day for divito, I'd say.
-
No, again definition is not the objective. The issue is that during the string it was stated that any fetus is ok to abort. And that if the Fetus is 11 weeks old or 40 weeks old has no bearing, as long as it is a fetus, it is ok to abort. To base a decision off of that is blind. The difference between a 10 week old fetus and a 40 week fetus is huge.
Except for the fact that it's still a fetus.
Yup it is a fetus, and since it is still a fetus, even at 40 weeks, you feel it is ok to still abort?
I do, since by definition it's still a parasite.
ok, so let me get this straight I'll play along some more. So, say a mother has twins. The first baby is delivered, umbilical cord cut and laying in her arms. The second is still not delivered yet. The mother decides she doesn't want the babys and smothers the first baby and then has the doctor abort the second baby. Was murder committed 1 time, 2 times or not at all?
Under U.S. law twice. 3rd trimester abortions are illegal fuckwit.
I know that, the question is on a basis of his idea that a fetus isn't a baby till it is born and that it is ok to abort. It is a moral question dumbass. read the string.
I think it is wrong to kill the fetus when it would be a baby in nearly no time, with no additional risk to the mother.
-
Red letter day for divito, I'd say.
That's every day.
-
Red letter day for divito, I'd say.
That's every day.
Hubris is an appeal to emotion, divito... ::)
-
Hubris is an appeal to emotion, divito... ::)
Relative.
-
Hubris is an appeal to emotion, divito... ::)
Relative.
My point exactly.
-
No, again definition is not the objective. The issue is that during the string it was stated that any fetus is ok to abort. And that if the Fetus is 11 weeks old or 40 weeks old has no bearing, as long as it is a fetus, it is ok to abort. To base a decision off of that is blind. The difference between a 10 week old fetus and a 40 week fetus is huge.
Except for the fact that it's still a fetus.
Yup it is a fetus, and since it is still a fetus, even at 40 weeks, you feel it is ok to still abort?
I do, since by definition it's still a parasite.
ok, so let me get this straight I'll play along some more. So, say a mother has twins. The first baby is delivered, umbilical cord cut and laying in her arms. The second is still not delivered yet. The mother decides she doesn't want the babys and smothers the first baby and then has the doctor abort the second baby. Was murder committed 1 time, 2 times or not at all?
Under U.S. law twice. 3rd trimester abortions are illegal fuckwit.
I know that, the question is on a basis of his idea that a fetus isn't a baby till it is born and that it is ok to abort. It is a moral question dumbass. read the string.
I think it is wrong to kill the fetus when it would be a baby in nearly no time, with no additional risk to the mother.
Agreed, That is the point I was trying to make.
-
No, again definition is not the objective. The issue is that during the string it was stated that any fetus is ok to abort. And that if the Fetus is 11 weeks old or 40 weeks old has no bearing, as long as it is a fetus, it is ok to abort. To base a decision off of that is blind. The difference between a 10 week old fetus and a 40 week fetus is huge.
Except for the fact that it's still a fetus.
Yup it is a fetus, and since it is still a fetus, even at 40 weeks, you feel it is ok to still abort?
I do, since by definition it's still a parasite.
ok, so let me get this straight I'll play along some more. So, say a mother has twins. The first baby is delivered, umbilical cord cut and laying in her arms. The second is still not delivered yet. The mother decides she doesn't want the babys and smothers the first baby and then has the doctor abort the second baby. Was murder committed 1 time, 2 times or not at all?
Under U.S. law twice. 3rd trimester abortions are illegal fuckwit.
I know that, the question is on a basis of his idea that a fetus isn't a baby till it is born and that it is ok to abort. It is a moral question dumbass. read the string.
I think it is wrong to kill the fetus when it would be a baby in nearly no time, with no additional risk to the mother.
Agreed, That is the point I was trying to make.
Well that is no reason not to have an abortion. That is just evidence against very late term abortions which are illegal. Congrats.
-
No, again definition is not the objective. The issue is that during the string it was stated that any fetus is ok to abort. And that if the Fetus is 11 weeks old or 40 weeks old has no bearing, as long as it is a fetus, it is ok to abort. To base a decision off of that is blind. The difference between a 10 week old fetus and a 40 week fetus is huge.
Except for the fact that it's still a fetus.
Yup it is a fetus, and since it is still a fetus, even at 40 weeks, you feel it is ok to still abort?
I do, since by definition it's still a parasite.
ok, so let me get this straight I'll play along some more. So, say a mother has twins. The first baby is delivered, umbilical cord cut and laying in her arms. The second is still not delivered yet. The mother decides she doesn't want the babys and smothers the first baby and then has the doctor abort the second baby. Was murder committed 1 time, 2 times or not at all?
Under U.S. law twice. 3rd trimester abortions are illegal fuckwit.
I know that, the question is on a basis of his idea that a fetus isn't a baby till it is born and that it is ok to abort. It is a moral question dumbass. read the string.
I think it is wrong to kill the fetus when it would be a baby in nearly no time, with no additional risk to the mother.
Agreed, That is the point I was trying to make.
But we're discussing abortion in a logical scenario, not one of those near impossible/illogical what-if scenarios, so your point is, well, pointless.
-
Fine, just as long as it is in agreement that a full term child at 40 weeks is also a fetus before it has been born because that is also the definition. And in that case as long as it is still a "fetus" you are ok with it being aborted.
Personally, I'm actually okay with the death of anyone. In the case of abortion though, I believe that until a fetus is its own separate entity (umbilical cord cut), it does not deserve rights as an individual human, because it's not an individual.
Well saying someone must stop at stop signs and drive the speed limit is authoritarian and hypocritical as well.
Yes, it's authoritarian. No it's not hypocritical. I'm calling your stance hypocritical because just as a fertilized egg contributes to a potential human, so does sperm. For someone who is pro-life, all sperm should then be kept viable. Anyone who destroys any sperm is a murderer.
Again changing the terminology, and again using a quote for "House". Now that you changed the term from baby, to parasitic entity. I am getting dizzy from the circles your speaking in.
I haven't changed terminology, I simply cite similarities and equivalencies. And it wasn't from House. I came up with this stuff in high school (as have many people), long before House ever became an idea for a show.
Nope, I was just going off what you feel and as YOU stated in YOUR Quote in the last thread, it seems that you think THIS since you provided me with those stipulations. YOU stated that YOU feel that they cannot think, see , feel or choese something and I provided you proof that they do at 23 weeks. I like how you cut the quote off to serve your need, Next time you quote someone, you should provide the entire quote because that was as direct quote from you. This is getting funny. Please re-read the last 2 threads so you can rememer what your beliefs are.
I've stated my beliefs in the first reply above.
Arbitrary? Last I heard, each only have 23 chromosomes. That to is a fact so you may want to consider that as you, and I quote "simply use definitions and facts to make conclusions and choices."
It's arbitrary in that you make chromosomes the basis for being a human versus countless other things.
And you are missing the point also. Killing someone due to a change its terminology, no matter what it is, is killing someone.
I said you can call it killing someone, I just like using the most accurate word to describe this "someone." Calling it a person and applying rights is just an appeal to emotion, rather than a valid argument.
nuff said..... again
So you agree with divito that you are merely denying facts, replacing them with an appeal to emotion to absolve yourself from having to actually argue the facts that in the case of pregnancy, a woman has the right to choose if she wants to abort or not?
Red letter day for divito, I'd say.
Depends on what you would say is a fact, If a fetus is in fact not a baby, or another term for a baby fine. If you feel that the fact that a late term fetus is not a baby then that is your decision, not fact. The fact of what the definition of a fetus is has no bearing on the the choice of if it is ok to abort.
-
Fine, just as long as it is in agreement that a full term child at 40 weeks is also a fetus before it has been born because that is also the definition. And in that case as long as it is still a "fetus" you are ok with it being aborted.
Personally, I'm actually okay with the death of anyone. In the case of abortion though, I believe that until a fetus is its own separate entity (umbilical cord cut), it does not deserve rights as an individual human, because it's not an individual.
Well saying someone must stop at stop signs and drive the speed limit is authoritarian and hypocritical as well.
Yes, it's authoritarian. No it's not hypocritical. I'm calling your stance hypocritical because just as a fertilized egg contributes to a potential human, so does sperm. For someone who is pro-life, all sperm should then be kept viable. Anyone who destroys any sperm is a murderer.
Again changing the terminology, and again using a quote for "House". Now that you changed the term from baby, to parasitic entity. I am getting dizzy from the circles your speaking in.
I haven't changed terminology, I simply cite similarities and equivalencies. And it wasn't from House. I came up with this stuff in high school (as have many people), long before House ever became an idea for a show.
Nope, I was just going off what you feel and as YOU stated in YOUR Quote in the last thread, it seems that you think THIS since you provided me with those stipulations. YOU stated that YOU feel that they cannot think, see , feel or choese something and I provided you proof that they do at 23 weeks. I like how you cut the quote off to serve your need, Next time you quote someone, you should provide the entire quote because that was as direct quote from you. This is getting funny. Please re-read the last 2 threads so you can rememer what your beliefs are.
I've stated my beliefs in the first reply above.
Arbitrary? Last I heard, each only have 23 chromosomes. That to is a fact so you may want to consider that as you, and I quote "simply use definitions and facts to make conclusions and choices."
It's arbitrary in that you make chromosomes the basis for being a human versus countless other things.
And you are missing the point also. Killing someone due to a change its terminology, no matter what it is, is killing someone.
I said you can call it killing someone, I just like using the most accurate word to describe this "someone." Calling it a person and applying rights is just an appeal to emotion, rather than a valid argument.
This is a scenerio that was presented by you
-
So? The scenario will almost never happen.
-
I make absolutely no appeal to emotions. If a person, as you define fetus, dies in the womb from an abortion, I don't particularly care. If the same person was not killed from an abortion, but stepped out in front of a train as a child or an adult, I still wouldn't care. It has absolutely no bearing on my life, and that's the only life I honestly care about.
But since I appeal to facts and definitions, here's a few facts that you don't seem to grasp:
- Fetus is a developing organism in a mother's womb until time of birth, when it becomes a baby.
- By definition of the word parasite, a fetus is also a parasite.
- A fetus is more dangerous to a mother as a parasite because it causes more vulnerable circumstances for the mother, deprives nutrients, and even threatens death during childbirth.
- Because a fetus is not a baby and legally not a person yet (undocumented socialite), any decision about it's survival becomes the responsibility of the mother.
- Laws dictate some of the rights of the mother regarding abortion anyway, such as the illegality of third trimester abortions. I don't feel there should be any more restrictions, and forcing someone to have an unwanted baby is wrong. There should always be choice.
I hope that clears a few things for you. Creating scenarios that never happen do not prove anything.
-
So? The scenario will almost never happen.
Good
-
So? The scenario will almost never happen.
Good
Again, proves nothing.