A question aimed at pro-lifers

Back on topic:

Now that is funny.

Quote from: KingMan on December 01, 2008, 03:06:22 PM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on December 01, 2008, 11:11:57 AM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 01, 2008, 09:11:56 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 01, 2008, 02:55:55 PM

Quote from: divito the truthist on December 01, 2008, 01:13:22 PM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 01, 2008, 12:20:16 PM

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.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on December 01, 2008, 03:19:28 PM

Quote from: KingMan on December 01, 2008, 03:06:22 PM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on December 01, 2008, 11:11:57 AM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 01, 2008, 09:11:56 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 01, 2008, 02:55:55 PM

Quote from: divito the truthist on December 01, 2008, 01:13:22 PM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 01, 2008, 12:20:16 PM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 07:39:26 AM

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?

Quote from: divito the truthist on December 02, 2008, 07:42:46 AM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 07:39:26 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 12:46:57 PM

Quote from: divito the truthist on December 02, 2008, 07:42:46 AM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 07:39:26 AM

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.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on December 02, 2008, 12:57:30 PM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 12:46:57 PM

Quote from: divito the truthist on December 02, 2008, 07:42:46 AM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 07:39:26 AM

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.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on December 02, 2008, 12:57:30 PM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 12:46:57 PM

Quote from: divito the truthist on December 02, 2008, 07:42:46 AM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 07:39:26 AM

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.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on December 02, 2008, 12:57:30 PM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 12:46:57 PM

Quote from: divito the truthist on December 02, 2008, 07:42:46 AM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 07:39:26 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 02:53:37 PM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on December 02, 2008, 12:57:30 PM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 12:46:57 PM

Quote from: divito the truthist on December 02, 2008, 07:42:46 AM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 07:39:26 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 02:53:37 PM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on December 02, 2008, 12:57:30 PM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 12:46:57 PM

Quote from: divito the truthist on December 02, 2008, 07:42:46 AM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 07:39:26 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 09:57:52 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 09:57:52 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 09:57:52 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 09:57:52 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 01:51:56 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 01:51:56 AM

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

Quote from: divito the truthist on November 28, 2008, 10:11:52 AM

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 09:57:52 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 09:57:52 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 09:57:52 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 09:57:52 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 01:51:56 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 01:51:56 AM

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.

Quote from: Raist on December 02, 2008, 06:12:07 PM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 02:53:37 PM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on December 02, 2008, 12:57:30 PM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 12:46:57 PM

Quote from: divito the truthist on December 02, 2008, 07:42:46 AM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 07:39:26 AM

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.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on December 03, 2008, 09:00:54 AM

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.

Quote from: T.T. Monsieur on December 03, 2008, 10:07:33 AM

Hubris is an appeal to emotion, divito...

Relative.

My point exactly.

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 03, 2008, 07:33:28 AM

Quote from: Raist on December 02, 2008, 06:12:07 PM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 02:53:37 PM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on December 02, 2008, 12:57:30 PM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 12:46:57 PM

Quote from: divito the truthist on December 02, 2008, 07:42:46 AM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 07:39:26 AM

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. 

Quote from: Raist on December 03, 2008, 09:41:37 AM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 03, 2008, 07:33:28 AM

Quote from: Raist on December 02, 2008, 06:12:07 PM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 02:53:37 PM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on December 02, 2008, 12:57:30 PM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 12:46:57 PM

Quote from: divito the truthist on December 02, 2008, 07:42:46 AM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 07:39:26 AM

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.

Quote from: Raist on December 03, 2008, 09:41:37 AM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 03, 2008, 07:33:28 AM

Quote from: Raist on December 02, 2008, 06:12:07 PM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 02:53:37 PM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on December 02, 2008, 12:57:30 PM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 12:46:57 PM

Quote from: divito the truthist on December 02, 2008, 07:42:46 AM

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 02, 2008, 07:39:26 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on December 03, 2008, 08:54:40 AM

Quote from: divito the truthist on November 28, 2008, 10:11:52 AM

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 09:57:52 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 09:57:52 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 09:57:52 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 09:57:52 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 01:51:56 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 01:51:56 AM

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. 

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 09:57:52 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 09:57:52 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 09:57:52 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 09:57:52 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 01:51:56 AM

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.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 28, 2008, 01:51:56 AM

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