Debates
18 Sep 07
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by MightRightThe only people who should have babies are those who are prepared to parent that child.
Dont maKE BABIES IF YOU DONT WANT ABORTION...
Now if someone is not prepared but has one anyway, that does not give justification to kill a human being. This is where adoption/support organization/family comes into play.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Are you still calling that yellow goo that drips out when you drop an egg on the floor a chicken?
So I start using the more accurate words....it is still an individual unique human being developing.
As I have said before, you can call it anything you want, but what matters is what it is.
It is a unique human individual being and therefore should be protected.
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human%20being
human being
Main E ...[text shortened]... rstand that it is a unique human individual being-and yes it is a person too.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by NordlysGo spend a day with some of them, when you know what you're talking about, get back to me....... And they're not "disabled", they are severly retarded , useless blobs of flesh. It's obscene to let them live.
Some people shouldn't be allowed to work with disabled people. Your view of the people you work with is absolutely disgusting.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by agrysonWhat the Nazis did to the Jews is that they said the Jews were inferior humans not true human beings. Therefore, their killing of them was justified.
Hitler wouldn't be making the choice, everyone has been very clear that it is the mothers decision and no one elses (Though I believe I'm not alone in saying that the father should have some nominal input).
So your slippery slope to Naziism argument doesn't fly.
You are saying the same thing at conception, that it is human but not a true human being. Therefore the killing of them is justified.
So it is the mother's decision, it is still murder. So Mrs. Claus decides, it is still murder.
A mother may make that choice, but that does not change the fact that a human being/a human person - is killed.
In both instances, a human being is devalued to: blob of tissue, human but not a person, etc and there comes the justification of the choice of the mother.
Is their a group that believes despite the fact that it is a human being that the choice of the mother overrides a human beings life?
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by Sam The ShamYou are right, we need to purge all the useless people in our society. (sarcasm)
Go spend a day with some of them, when you know what you're talking about, get back to me....... And they're not "disabled", they are severly retarded , useless blobs of flesh. It's obscene to let them live.
Question: who decides who lives and who dies? What is the qualifying line?
Maybe someone will decide that your comment is obscene and they will decide if you live or die.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001No, I have never denied it is human from post number one. What I have disagreed with is your equating a bunch of human cells with fully formed individuality. They are not the same, I am not picking and choosing which definitions to use, all of them apply, a human embryo is human, but it is not a person, it does not have the capability to internalise its environment prior to a certain developmental stage and what I am saying is that abortion cannot therefore be termed murder provided it occurs prior to that ability to internalise arises.
So I start using the more accurate words....it is still an individual unique human being developing.
As I have said before, you can call it anything you want, but what matters is what it is.
It is a unique human individual being and therefore should be protected.
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human%20being
human being
Main E ...[text shortened]... rstand that it is a unique human individual being-and yes it is a person too.
You are perfectly entitled to have a personal moral viewpoint that abortion is wrong, but you cannot allow your viewpoint to colour the objective fact that an embryo is nothing more than a bunch of cells. Yes, if given time to develop and everything goes okay, it will become an individual human being capable of internalising their environment, but provided abortion takes place before there is a chance for that to happen it is not murder.
Incidentally, youa re still to explain the internal inconsistency of you argument when it comes to accepting the rythm method which does the exact same thing as abortion. Namely:
A conscious decision is taken to perform acts which will result the fertilisation of an egg resulting in conception of an individual human zygote.
A conscious decision is made to ensure that such fertilisation occurs at such a time that it will be rejected by the mothers body and fail to implant in the womb.
The still living zygote, by this stage having split into more than one cell is ejected from the mothers body.
That zygote still fits your definiton of an individual human being. That zygote was terminated due to a conscious and willful act on the part of the parents (so it is not an accident). And yet, you agree with the rythm method of contraception (which should actually be termed contraimplantation, if we want to get technical) and disagree very strongly to abortion. Until such time as you can reconcile this inconsistency in your own viewpoints, do you really think you can admonish others for viewing abortion as morally acceptable?
03 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Once again, all I can do is suggest that you go DO IT and spend a day with the "profoundly" mentally retarded, then see if your opinion is differant from mine.
You are right, we need to purge all the useless people in our society. (sarcasm)
Question: who decides who lives and who dies? What is the qualifying line?
Maybe someone will decide that your comment is obscene and they will decide if you live or die.
I know what I'm talking about, do you?
Go clean out the diaper of a 200 pound tard, use a lift to get it off it's wheelchair and get feces smeared all over your gloved hands while it drools and goes DUUUURHHHHHH. Then you'll have a notion as to what I'm talking about.
03 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Surely you can see the enormous exaggeration your making? You think I'm pulling my definition of human/human being out of my ass? Your own argument relies on nothing more than their genetic code, which if I wanted I could construct artificially and inject into an empty egg. Doesn't even need to be a human egg, it would still be a human genome and turn into a human child. Prior to the second term, it is a bunch of tissue and biological matter and obtains the qualities of personhood later on.
What the Nazis did to the Jews is that they said the Jews were inferior humans not true human beings. Therefore, their killing of them was justified.
You are saying the same thing at conception, that it is human but not a true human being. Therefore the killing of them is justified.
So it is the mother's decision, it is still murder. So Mrs. ...[text shortened]... the fact that it is a human being that the choice of the mother overrides a human beings life?
That's very different to saying that you are subhuman simply due to your religion. Stop flailing around and come up with an argument rather than trying to insinuate that I and others think like Nazi's.
Edit: And don't forget about my point on your arguments bald-faced inconsistency, I wouldn't like you to forget to answer it for the third time, or would this make it the fourth?
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by agrysonI don't think this is going to work. You are trying reasoned, intelligent argument and I am trying flippant, borderline sarcastic chicken references and it seems we get the same reply, more or less each time.
If it was a free range egg and fertilised, (I've eaten many of them myself) then it fits the exact same profile.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by WheelyWell I think we can find some common ground if only we could decide which came first...
I don't think this is going to work. You are trying reasoned, intelligent argument and I am trying flippant, borderline sarcastic chicken references and it seems we get the same reply, more or less each time.
