User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:03:31 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. I don't think it's a living being until it's heart is beating. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So 6 weeks in or so? You are good with abortion to that point? I don't think it's a living being until it's heart is beating. Back to biology with you! Sponges and Cnidarians (jellyfish, corals) have no hearts, and they live life to the fullest! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:04:28 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Please tell me a single way this is contrary to any other statement I have made in this thread. Big hint. It isn't. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Or you know, we might actually believe in survival of the fittest. You can change your tune mid stream. I won't even judge you. I suppose defending a toddler from harm is a bad idea though. He should man the fuck up. Fucking pussy kid. Please tell me a single way this is contrary to any other statement I have made in this thread. Big hint. It isn't. Well, it is. I would step over 1000 starving children to help a single injured animal. Starving versus an injury, neither of which are generally the fault of the animal, but you'd intentionally choose one over the other. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:05:03 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL, your opinion is noted, but refuted by biology textbooks. Which I guess you can deny also, I don't see the point in that personally. There are so many other avenues of attack you could take over the simple, putting your fingers in your ear and humming. But, to each their own. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Actually there is another purpose for sex, pleasure. Wouldn't you agree? And she does take responsibility, she makes a conscious decision as to whether she wants to carry the child to term, if she chooses not to, she aborts it and goes on with her life. A win-win in both case. No, the purpose of sex is not pleasure. Pleasurable feelings are part of natures way of enticing reproduction. If coupling were excruciatingly painful few would engage in it. Nice try though. LOL, your opinion is noted, but refuted by biology textbooks. Which I guess you can deny also, I don't see the point in that personally. There are so many other avenues of attack you could take over the simple, putting your fingers in your ear and humming. But, to each their own. Ohhhhhhhhh textbooks... Lots of them "prove" global warming, and others are full of revisionist history. The purpose of sex is reproduction, end of story. Yes it is pleasurable. Yes I love fucking, and yes I fuck because it is pleasurable. That however is not the biological purpose of it. We are however self-aware in ways lesser animals are not, and we understand that the successful outcome of fucking is a kid. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:05:21 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Back to biology with you! Sponges and Cnidarians (jellyfish, corals) have no hearts, and they live life to the fullest! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So 6 weeks in or so? You are good with abortion to that point? I don't think it's a living being until it's heart is beating. Back to biology with you! Sponges and Cnidarians (jellyfish, corals) have no hearts, and they live life to the fullest! If you aren't, then I'd counter with the fact that I don't know any humans without beating hearts.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:05:47 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, which school did you get your Medical degree from? I will even accept a DO in this case. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
LOL, your opinion is noted, but refuted by biology textbooks. 
Like you know anything about biology. Again, which school did you get your Medical degree from? I will even accept a DO in this case. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:06:26 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't tell if you're joking. If you aren't, then I'd counter with the fact that I don't know any humans without beating hearts.
Well, then this video would be apropos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uXQhGqSk7c |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:08:32 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, then this video would be apropos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uXQhGqSk7c Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I can't tell if you're joking. If you aren't, then I'd counter with the fact that I don't know any humans without beating hearts. Well, then this video would be apropos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uXQhGqSk7c Frankly it's not. It's not even relevant to the conversation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:08:56 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Slanted question is slanted. In answer to your question I told my mother she better sign an advance directive because if its my call she will be given basic life sustaining support - water, nourishment, oxygen if she needs it to help with breathing, and pain management. I will not "pull the plug." And not that it's any of your business, but when my dad was in a coma dying from pancreatic cancer it was my call to make, there was no advance directive, and I told the doctors to make him comfortable and nature would run its course. You see I don't have the right to decide to terminate another person's life, and a fetus is a person by every single scientific standard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
She had control of it when she chose to use it to engage in an act whose sole biological purpose is reproduction, creating another life. She made her choice, time to be a big girl and take responsibility. If someone has a tapeworm, should they be unable to remove it because they chose to take a risk by eating possibly tainted food, and now they have a responsibility to allow the worm to complete its life cycle? Up until a certain point, the fetus and the worm are at an equal level of consciousness (that is, none). So it's OK to hold a pillow over the face of someone in a coma that doesn't react to physical stimuli? Fetuses react, therefore they have a higher level of consciousness. So OK to murder the person in the coma? Would you want to reserve the right to end one of your parents lives, if they were dying from an incurable disease and in a constant state of intense suffering? Or do you require them to suck it up and live out their agonized life to please you and your wants? Slanted question is slanted. In answer to your question I told my mother she better sign an advance directive because if its my call she will be given basic life sustaining support - water, nourishment, oxygen if she needs it to help with breathing, and pain management. I will not "pull the plug." And not that it's any of your business, but when my dad was in a coma dying from pancreatic cancer it was my call to make, there was no advance directive, and I told the doctors to make him comfortable and nature would run its course. You see I don't have the right to decide to terminate another person's life, and a fetus is a person by every single scientific standard. You shared with me, I will share with you, my Mother died from a long (20 years) case of emphysema, I too had her medical power of attorney, I did everything in my power to ensure she was comfortable, or as comfortable as you can be as you slowly suffocate, and I decided that no extraordinary means were to be used to keep her alive. She died in no pain, but clearly uncomfortable. I was very relieved when she finally passed, and obviously heart broken. As to fetuses, they are not scientifically a person, as a fetus. But, I think that is the fundamental crux of our disagreement, the point at which it turns from a fetus into a person, no? And what rights it ought to have at each step? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:09:21 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. I don't think it's a living being until it's heart is beating. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So 6 weeks in or so? You are good with abortion to that point? I don't think it's a living being until it's heart is beating. Good by me, I will take it as a start!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:10:57 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't tell you what a huge relief it is to know that a proud member of our armed forces has vowed not to die to protect anyone else...  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I wouldn't die to protect anyone, and outside of some ridiculous postering most others wouldn't either. Eta Also if you imply that it somehow males humans special you would still be very very wrong. http://ncronline.org/blogs/eco-catholic/holy-altruism-instinct-self-sacrifice-evident-animal-evolution I can't tell you what a huge relief it is to know that a proud member of our armed forces has vowed not to die to protect anyone else... So, no thanks for his service then? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:11:52 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We don't have to do anything. You are free to dispose of your nail clippings as you see fit. For me, yes, I am concerned with any human life I take part in producing, from conception onward. My wife had a miscarriage that required a D&C. She had had a sonogram a couple of weeks prior that revealed something ghostly, a life that was not to be. I was very concerned with how it would be disposed of after the D&C. The doctor said that it would be sent to pathology and then incinerated. The conversation I had with her was like a funeral of sorts. This tiny being, however hapless and malformed, deserved some reverence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Actually there is another purpose for sex, pleasure. Wouldn't you agree? And she does take responsibility, she makes a conscious decision as to whether she wants to carry the child to term, if she chooses not to, she aborts it and goes on with her life. A win-win in both case. So what you're saying it's acceptable to take a life, because pleasure? Just trying to understand. No, because I do not think that a fetus is life. No more so than my gall bladder or finger nail clippings. You definition is incorrect. But I think you are coming close to grasping the general idea. Should we hold funerals for every menses, as it might contain a fertilized egg? In your mind, what is the spark that turns it form a clump of cells, to human? We don't have to do anything. You are free to dispose of your nail clippings as you see fit. For me, yes, I am concerned with any human life I take part in producing, from conception onward. My wife had a miscarriage that required a D&C. She had had a sonogram a couple of weeks prior that revealed something ghostly, a life that was not to be. I was very concerned with how it would be disposed of after the D&C. The doctor said that it would be sent to pathology and then incinerated. The conversation I had with her was like a funeral of sorts. This tiny being, however hapless and malformed, deserved some reverence. I am sorry for your loss. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:11:58 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree with a lot of what you are saying here. The problem I have is you are using a legal term, in a decidedly non-legal discussion, as much as you want abortion to be murder, it simply can't be, because murder has a specific definition, not open to interpretation. You may call an egg a car, but it won't make that egg a car in the real world. I understand you want an emotionally charged word to use, I think the onus is on you to come up with one that is both emotionally charged enough for you and correct in it's usage. Thats a fair request isn't it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But, Abortion is perfectly legal, while holding a pillow over a brain dead persons face is not. Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. Abortion being legal, simply can't be murder. You didn't know this already? You're being obtuse. Owning other human beings was once legal. Forced sterilization was once legal. Just because nine idiots in black robes foist their opinion upon is does not make it moral or just. The bench is beyond politicized. If SCOTUS were to rule tomorrow that anything other than a musket was illegal, would you embrace and defend the decision? Unless your answer is yes your posts in this thread are morally bankrupt and intellectually disingenuous. I agree with a lot of what you are saying here. The problem I have is you are using a legal term, in a decidedly non-legal discussion, as much as you want abortion to be murder, it simply can't be, because murder has a specific definition, not open to interpretation. You may call an egg a car, but it won't make that egg a car in the real world. I understand you want an emotionally charged word to use, I think the onus is on you to come up with one that is both emotionally charged enough for you and correct in it's usage. Thats a fair request isn't it? It's very simple, if I go up to a pregnant woman and kick her in the stomach and forcing a miscarriage, I will be charged with murder. If she chooses to have a doctor slice and dice the same fetus causing a planned miscarriage, it's not murder. Since it was intended, it can't be manslaughter either. So tell me Mr. Chief Justice, how can the killing of the same fetus be in one instance murder and another instance permissible? You see, I didn't define the killing of that fetus via deliberate assault to be murder, the LAW did. I'm pointing out the blatant and hypocritical dichotomy. It is murder, the law says the intentional taking of that fetus's life is murder. You want to carve out exceptions, I'm the one being consistent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:13:37 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Frankly it's not. It's not even relevant to the conversation. It shows that a beating heart is not necessary to be a living human being, rendering your choice rather arbitrary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:14:19 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ohhhhhhhhh textbooks... Lots of them "prove" global warming, and others are full of revisionist history. The purpose of sex is reproduction, end of story. Yes it is pleasurable. Yes I love fucking, and yes I fuck because it is pleasurable. That however is not the biological purpose of it. We are however self-aware in ways lesser animals are not, and we understand that the successful outcome of fucking is a kid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Actually there is another purpose for sex, pleasure. Wouldn't you agree? And she does take responsibility, she makes a conscious decision as to whether she wants to carry the child to term, if she chooses not to, she aborts it and goes on with her life. A win-win in both case. No, the purpose of sex is not pleasure. Pleasurable feelings are part of natures way of enticing reproduction. If coupling were excruciatingly painful few would engage in it. Nice try though. LOL, your opinion is noted, but refuted by biology textbooks. Which I guess you can deny also, I don't see the point in that personally. There are so many other avenues of attack you could take over the simple, putting your fingers in your ear and humming. But, to each their own. Ohhhhhhhhh textbooks... Lots of them "prove" global warming, and others are full of revisionist history. The purpose of sex is reproduction, end of story. Yes it is pleasurable. Yes I love fucking, and yes I fuck because it is pleasurable. That however is not the biological purpose of it. We are however self-aware in ways lesser animals are not, and we understand that the successful outcome of fucking is a kid. I am not quiet getting what you are saying. Every sexual experience should produce a child? All pleasure is secondary to reproduction? Can you expand a bit? (And god yes, the textbook thing was weak. LOL! I even thought so.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:15:54 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't tell if you're joking. If you aren't, then I'd counter with the fact that I don't know any humans without beating hearts.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So 6 weeks in or so? You are good with abortion to that point? I don't think it's a living being until it's heart is beating. Back to biology with you! Sponges and Cnidarians (jellyfish, corals) have no hearts, and they live life to the fullest! If you aren't, then I'd counter with the fact that I don't know any humans without beating hearts.
Well then, how about heart transplant patients, who have their hearts removed for up to 5 hours, are they no longer humans for that time? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:16:22 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It shows that a beating heart is not necessary to be a living human being, rendering your choice rather arbitrary. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Frankly it's not. It's not even relevant to the conversation. It shows that a beating heart is not necessary to be a living human being, rendering your choice rather arbitrary. Having the ability to replace the heart after it's begun beating has no bearing on the heart's existence being necessary for life to exist in a human being. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:17:12 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
LOL, your opinion is noted, but refuted by biology textbooks.
Like you know anything about biology. Again, which school did you get your Medical degree from? I will even accept a DO in this case. http://i.imgur.com/gzkxVcH.png You are casting aspersions on my degree, I thought you might have your own to back it up, and I even was willing to accept a DO as payment in this particular game. I gather not then, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:18:15 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well then, how about heart transplant patients, who have their hearts removed for up to 5 hours, are they no longer humans for that time? The video I linked details a heart that uses a turbine, and therefore no pulse, no beating. Guess by his standard, the guy is a zombie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:19:29 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's very simple, if I go up to a pregnant woman and kick her in the stomach and forcing a miscarriage, I will be charged with murder. If she chooses to have a doctor slice and dice the same fetus causing a planned miscarriage, it's not murder. Since it was intended, it can't be manslaughter either. So tell me Mr. Chief Justice, how can the killing of the same fetus be in one instance murder and another instance permissible? You see, I didn't define the killing of that fetus via deliberate assault to be murder, the LAW did. I'm pointing out the blatant and hypocritical dichotomy. It is murder, the law says the intentional taking of that fetus's life is murder. You want to carve out exceptions, I'm the one being consistent. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But, Abortion is perfectly legal, while holding a pillow over a brain dead persons face is not. Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. Abortion being legal, simply can't be murder. You didn't know this already? You're being obtuse. Owning other human beings was once legal. Forced sterilization was once legal. Just because nine idiots in black robes foist their opinion upon is does not make it moral or just. The bench is beyond politicized. If SCOTUS were to rule tomorrow that anything other than a musket was illegal, would you embrace and defend the decision? Unless your answer is yes your posts in this thread are morally bankrupt and intellectually disingenuous. I agree with a lot of what you are saying here. The problem I have is you are using a legal term, in a decidedly non-legal discussion, as much as you want abortion to be murder, it simply can't be, because murder has a specific definition, not open to interpretation. You may call an egg a car, but it won't make that egg a car in the real world. I understand you want an emotionally charged word to use, I think the onus is on you to come up with one that is both emotionally charged enough for you and correct in it's usage. Thats a fair request isn't it? It's very simple, if I go up to a pregnant woman and kick her in the stomach and forcing a miscarriage, I will be charged with murder. If she chooses to have a doctor slice and dice the same fetus causing a planned miscarriage, it's not murder. Since it was intended, it can't be manslaughter either. So tell me Mr. Chief Justice, how can the killing of the same fetus be in one instance murder and another instance permissible? You see, I didn't define the killing of that fetus via deliberate assault to be murder, the LAW did. I'm pointing out the blatant and hypocritical dichotomy. It is murder, the law says the intentional taking of that fetus's life is murder. You want to carve out exceptions, I'm the one being consistent. Except that law recognizes the females right to ether abort or decide not to abort. In the case of you kicking her in the belly forcing a spontaneous abortion, that is murder as the woman did not choose it, in the case of her slicing and dicing the fetus with the aid of her Doctor, she did choose it, so it is not murder. You get that right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:19:46 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well then, how about heart transplant patients, who have their hearts removed for up to 5 hours, are they no longer humans for that time? They're still born with a heart. What you do with a human after they are born is largely irrelevant to their development in the womb, wouldn't you say? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:20:11 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It shows that a beating heart is not necessary to be a living human being, rendering your choice rather arbitrary. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Frankly it's not. It's not even relevant to the conversation. It shows that a beating heart is not necessary to be a living human being, rendering your choice rather arbitrary. Did you do the Heart Transplant video? I didn't want to take the time to find one. LOL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:20:53 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hardly. Having the ability to replace the heart after it's begun beating has no bearing on the heart's existence being necessary for life to exist in a human being. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Frankly it's not. It's not even relevant to the conversation. It shows that a beating heart is not necessary to be a living human being, rendering your choice rather arbitrary. Having the ability to replace the heart after it's begun beating has no bearing on the heart's existence being necessary for life to exist in a human being. What if we go in and remove the fetus's heart and periodically replace it with an appropriately sized mechanical model? That person is never living? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:21:14 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did you do the Heart Transplant video? I didn't want to take the time to find one. LOL. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Frankly it's not. It's not even relevant to the conversation. It shows that a beating heart is not necessary to be a living human being, rendering your choice rather arbitrary. Did you do the Heart Transplant video? I didn't want to take the time to find one. LOL. We could discuss other metrics, if necessary, but frankly you guys are being silly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:22:02 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What if we go in and remove the fetus's heart and periodically replace it with an appropriately sized mechanical model? That person is never living? Are you saying the child is not alive when it's heart is beating? If so, when is it alive? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:22:16 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The video I linked details a heart that uses a turbine, and therefore no pulse, no beating. Guess by his standard, the guy is a zombie. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well then, how about heart transplant patients, who have their hearts removed for up to 5 hours, are they no longer humans for that time? The video I linked details a heart that uses a turbine, and therefore no pulse, no beating. Guess by his standard, the guy is a zombie. LOL, I don't think minds are going to be changed in one fell swoop, they need to face the inconsistencies slowly and absorb them at their own speed. I fear some won't ever get it, but it is a numbers game in the end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:22:33 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As to fetuses, they are not scientifically a person, as a fetus. But, I think that is the fundamental crux of our disagreement, the point at which it turns from a fetus into a person, no? And what rights it ought to have at each step? First, I'm sorry about your mother, it's terrible to see those who gave us everything suffer. Even though I despised my father, watching a vibrant man transform to a living corpse in four months was simply awful. Take the DNA of a fetus and analyze it. Tell me what the genetic sequencing comes back as.., human. The same DNA it ill have at 100 if it lives that long. Your demanding a line in the sand as to when a fetus becomes a "person" is sophistry. You are demanding a scientific definition while concurrently rejecting the definition science DOES give you. The moment unique human DNA is discernible and the functions of life are detected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:22:50 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you do the Heart Transplant video? I didn't want to take the time to find one. LOL. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Frankly it's not. It's not even relevant to the conversation. It shows that a beating heart is not necessary to be a living human being, rendering your choice rather arbitrary. Did you do the Heart Transplant video? I didn't want to take the time to find one. LOL. Yup. One with a new type of heart that uses a turbine and therefore doesn't beat. Too funny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:23:26 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They're still born with a heart.
What you do with a human after they are born is largely irrelevant to their development in the womb, wouldn't you say? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well then, how about heart transplant patients, who have their hearts removed for up to 5 hours, are they no longer humans for that time? They're still born with a heart.
What you do with a human after they are born is largely irrelevant to their development in the womb, wouldn't you say? I think I can go either way on that one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:24:35 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What if we made up retarded shit to avoid the subject at hand? Are you saying the child is not alive when it's heart is beating? If so, when is it alive? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What if we go in and remove the fetus's heart and periodically replace it with an appropriately sized mechanical model? That person is never living? Are you saying the child is not alive when it's heart is beating? If so, when is it alive? The embryo is a living cell, as are sperm and eggs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:24:56 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We could discuss other metrics, if necessary, but frankly you guys are being silly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Frankly it's not. It's not even relevant to the conversation. It shows that a beating heart is not necessary to be a living human being, rendering your choice rather arbitrary. Did you do the Heart Transplant video? I didn't want to take the time to find one. LOL. We could discuss other metrics, if necessary, but frankly you guys are being silly. Lets go for other metrics then! As, while I am not finding silly per se, it does look like you got backed into a corner. Always leave a person an out, otherwise it gets nasty.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:25:47 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What if we made up retarded shit to avoid the subject at hand? Are you saying the child is not alive when it's heart is beating? If so, when is it alive? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What if we go in and remove the fetus's heart and periodically replace it with an appropriately sized mechanical model? That person is never living? Are you saying the child is not alive when it's heart is beating? If so, when is it alive? It can be alive at the moment of conception, or it can be alive at any of a number of developmental stages along its growth in utero. What is your take on it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:25:48 AM EDT
[#32]
Because it is fucking murder man. I don't give a shit what lever they pull, they are killing a human being that is incapable of defending itself. It's no fucking different than killing a bunch of kids at a school or wherever. It's wrong.
Jesus said what we do to the least of these we do to Him. His teachings are very clear. If no one will stand up to the murdering of millions of innocent, defenseless, unborn children who will? You can say it is a single issue, or a losing issue or whatever your case may be, but if you support the killing of kids you need your head examined. If they grow up and become FSA and murder each other by the score I don't care in the least other than they are someone's child and are lived by someone that will grieve the loss of a child no matter how old |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:25:49 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The embryo is a living cell, as are sperm and eggs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: What if we go in and remove the fetus's heart and periodically replace it with an appropriately sized mechanical model? That person is never living? Are you saying the child is not alive when it's heart is beating? If so, when is it alive? The embryo is a living cell, as are sperm and eggs. I didn't say living cell. When is it a living human being? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:26:06 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am not quiet getting what you are saying. Every sexual experience should produce a child? All pleasure is secondary to reproduction? Can you expand a bit? (And god yes, the textbook thing was weak. LOL! I even thought so.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Actually there is another purpose for sex, pleasure. Wouldn't you agree? And she does take responsibility, she makes a conscious decision as to whether she wants to carry the child to term, if she chooses not to, she aborts it and goes on with her life. A win-win in both case. No, the purpose of sex is not pleasure. Pleasurable feelings are part of natures way of enticing reproduction. If coupling were excruciatingly painful few would engage in it. Nice try though. LOL, your opinion is noted, but refuted by biology textbooks. Which I guess you can deny also, I don't see the point in that personally. There are so many other avenues of attack you could take over the simple, putting your fingers in your ear and humming. But, to each their own. Ohhhhhhhhh textbooks... Lots of them "prove" global warming, and others are full of revisionist history. The purpose of sex is reproduction, end of story. Yes it is pleasurable. Yes I love fucking, and yes I fuck because it is pleasurable. That however is not the biological purpose of it. We are however self-aware in ways lesser animals are not, and we understand that the successful outcome of fucking is a kid. I am not quiet getting what you are saying. Every sexual experience should produce a child? All pleasure is secondary to reproduction? Can you expand a bit? (And god yes, the textbook thing was weak. LOL! I even thought so.) The biological purpose of inter course is reproduction, period. No, not every act of intercourse will result in reproduction, but we know that it is possible as that is the purpose. We can take efforts to mitigate that possibility, but there is always a chance unless one of the parties is sterile. Accordingly we should be prepared to accept the consequences of an action whose biological purpose is known. I think it's pretty clear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:26:10 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It can be alive at the moment of conception, or it can be alive at any of a number of developmental stages along its growth in utero. What is your take on it? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: What if we go in and remove the fetus's heart and periodically replace it with an appropriately sized mechanical model? That person is never living? Are you saying the child is not alive when it's heart is beating? If so, when is it alive? It can be alive at the moment of conception, or it can be alive at any of a number of developmental stages along its growth in utero. What is your take on it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:27:15 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First, I'm sorry about your mother, it's terrible to see those who gave us everything suffer. Even though I despised my father, watching a vibrant man transform to a living corpse in four months was simply awful. Take the DNA of a fetus and analyze it. Tell me what the genetic sequencing comes back as.., human. The same DNA it ill have at 100 if it lives that long. Your demanding a line in the sand as to when a fetus becomes a "person" is sophistry. You are demanding a scientific definition while concurrently rejecting the definition science DOES give you. The moment unique human DNA is discernible and the functions of life are detected. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As to fetuses, they are not scientifically a person, as a fetus. But, I think that is the fundamental crux of our disagreement, the point at which it turns from a fetus into a person, no? And what rights it ought to have at each step? First, I'm sorry about your mother, it's terrible to see those who gave us everything suffer. Even though I despised my father, watching a vibrant man transform to a living corpse in four months was simply awful. Take the DNA of a fetus and analyze it. Tell me what the genetic sequencing comes back as.., human. The same DNA it ill have at 100 if it lives that long. Your demanding a line in the sand as to when a fetus becomes a "person" is sophistry. You are demanding a scientific definition while concurrently rejecting the definition science DOES give you. The moment unique human DNA is discernible and the functions of life are detected. Hmm, so when a college freshmen creates DNA, you think that would be considered an individual human life? Or am I misreading you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:28:00 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except that law recognizes the females right to ether abort or decide not to abort. In the case of you kicking her in the belly forcing a spontaneous abortion, that is murder as the woman did not choose it, in the case of her slicing and dicing the fetus with the aid of her Doctor, she did choose it, so it is not murder. You get that right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But, Abortion is perfectly legal, while holding a pillow over a brain dead persons face is not. Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. Abortion being legal, simply can't be murder. You didn't know this already? You're being obtuse. Owning other human beings was once legal. Forced sterilization was once legal. Just because nine idiots in black robes foist their opinion upon is does not make it moral or just. The bench is beyond politicized. If SCOTUS were to rule tomorrow that anything other than a musket was illegal, would you embrace and defend the decision? Unless your answer is yes your posts in this thread are morally bankrupt and intellectually disingenuous. I agree with a lot of what you are saying here. The problem I have is you are using a legal term, in a decidedly non-legal discussion, as much as you want abortion to be murder, it simply can't be, because murder has a specific definition, not open to interpretation. You may call an egg a car, but it won't make that egg a car in the real world. I understand you want an emotionally charged word to use, I think the onus is on you to come up with one that is both emotionally charged enough for you and correct in it's usage. Thats a fair request isn't it? It's very simple, if I go up to a pregnant woman and kick her in the stomach and forcing a miscarriage, I will be charged with murder. If she chooses to have a doctor slice and dice the same fetus causing a planned miscarriage, it's not murder. Since it was intended, it can't be manslaughter either. So tell me Mr. Chief Justice, how can the killing of the same fetus be in one instance murder and another instance permissible? You see, I didn't define the killing of that fetus via deliberate assault to be murder, the LAW did. I'm pointing out the blatant and hypocritical dichotomy. It is murder, the law says the intentional taking of that fetus's life is murder. You want to carve out exceptions, I'm the one being consistent. Except that law recognizes the females right to ether abort or decide not to abort. In the case of you kicking her in the belly forcing a spontaneous abortion, that is murder as the woman did not choose it, in the case of her slicing and dicing the fetus with the aid of her Doctor, she did choose it, so it is not murder. You get that right? According to you, you can't murder that which is not human, correct? You've just painted yourself into a corner. You can't defend that law without acknowledging that the fetus is indeed human. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:28:40 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't say living cell. When is it a living human being? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What if we go in and remove the fetus's heart and periodically replace it with an appropriately sized mechanical model? That person is never living? Are you saying the child is not alive when it's heart is beating? If so, when is it alive? The embryo is a living cell, as are sperm and eggs. I didn't say living cell. When is it a living human being? It's rather nebulous, I'd say. I would confer legal protection at 6 months. I wouldn't consider it a person until it becomes self aware, which happens 18-24 months after birth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:28:41 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quitter! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't care anymore... Quitter! Seriously, you're being sarcastic about me not caring about this squabble?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:29:24 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because it is fucking murder man. I don't give a shit what lever they pull, they are killing a human being that is incapable of defending itself. It's no fucking different than killing a bunch of kids at a school or wherever. It's wrong. Jesus said what we do to the least of these we do to Him. His teachings are very clear. If no one will stand up to the murdering of millions of innocent, defenseless, unborn children who will? You can say it is a single issue, or a losing issue or whatever your case may be, but if you support the killing of kids you need your head examined. If they grow up and become FSA and murder each other by the score I don't care in the least other than they are someone's child and are lived by someone that will grieve the loss of a child no matter how old How interesting, so you stand by and watch millions of children be killed, why? You don't think protecting millions of children to be worth, well, maybe giving your life for? Or is American Idol coming on and you will get to it later? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:29:47 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't say living cell. When is it a living human being? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What if we go in and remove the fetus's heart and periodically replace it with an appropriately sized mechanical model? That person is never living? Are you saying the child is not alive when it's heart is beating? If so, when is it alive? The embryo is a living cell, as are sperm and eggs. I didn't say living cell. When is it a living human being? That is the root question, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:31:17 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's rather nebulous, I'd say. I would confer legal protection at 6 months. I wouldn't consider it a person until it becomes self aware, which happens after birth. What changes in two weeks that you'd be fine with killing a viable child? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:31:27 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hmm, so when a college freshmen creates DNA, you think that would be considered an individual human life? Or am I misreading you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As to fetuses, they are not scientifically a person, as a fetus. But, I think that is the fundamental crux of our disagreement, the point at which it turns from a fetus into a person, no? And what rights it ought to have at each step? First, I'm sorry about your mother, it's terrible to see those who gave us everything suffer. Even though I despised my father, watching a vibrant man transform to a living corpse in four months was simply awful. Take the DNA of a fetus and analyze it. Tell me what the genetic sequencing comes back as.., human. The same DNA it ill have at 100 if it lives that long. Your demanding a line in the sand as to when a fetus becomes a "person" is sophistry. You are demanding a scientific definition while concurrently rejecting the definition science DOES give you. The moment unique human DNA is discernible and the functions of life are detected. Hmm, so when a college freshmen creates DNA, you think that would be considered an individual human life? Or am I misreading you? When sperm and eggs combine they take two unique DNA codes and create a third unique DNA code derived from the parents. Again you are being incredibly obtuse for somebody who supposedly has a medical degree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:31:33 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is the root question, isn't it? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: When is it a living human being? That is the root question, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:32:20 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The biological purpose of inter course is reproduction, period. No, not every act of intercourse will result in reproduction, but we know that it is possible as that is the purpose. We can take efforts to mitigate that possibility, but there is always a chance unless one of the parties is sterile. Accordingly we should be prepared to accept the consequences of an action whose biological purpose is known. I think it's pretty clear. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, the purpose of sex is not pleasure. Pleasurable feelings are part of natures way of enticing reproduction. If coupling were excruciatingly painful few would engage in it. Nice try though. LOL, your opinion is noted, but refuted by biology textbooks. Which I guess you can deny also, I don't see the point in that personally. There are so many other avenues of attack you could take over the simple, putting your fingers in your ear and humming. But, to each their own. Ohhhhhhhhh textbooks... Lots of them "prove" global warming, and others are full of revisionist history. The purpose of sex is reproduction, end of story. Yes it is pleasurable. Yes I love fucking, and yes I fuck because it is pleasurable. That however is not the biological purpose of it. We are however self-aware in ways lesser animals are not, and we understand that the successful outcome of fucking is a kid. I am not quiet getting what you are saying. Every sexual experience should produce a child? All pleasure is secondary to reproduction? Can you expand a bit? (And god yes, the textbook thing was weak. LOL! I even thought so.) The biological purpose of inter course is reproduction, period. No, not every act of intercourse will result in reproduction, but we know that it is possible as that is the purpose. We can take efforts to mitigate that possibility, but there is always a chance unless one of the parties is sterile. Accordingly we should be prepared to accept the consequences of an action whose biological purpose is known. I think it's pretty clear. Yes, in your world view it appears to be very clear. But is another individual allowed to have their own world view of their own life? Or must they conform to yours? What if another individuals world view is quite clear also, and in that world view, they find abortion acceptable? And that sex can be for pleasure over reproduction? Acceptable or not to you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:36:11 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Children born at 5 1/2 months can survive into adult hood. What changes in two weeks that you'd be fine with killing a viable child? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's rather nebulous, I'd say. I would confer legal protection at 6 months. I wouldn't consider it a person until it becomes self aware, which happens after birth. What changes in two weeks that you'd be fine with killing a viable child? None, but you need a standard for legal purposes. Also, I wouldn't consider the fetus viable if unusual measures are needed to keep it alive. At some point, we'll be able to take an embryo and bring it to term using only machines. That doesn't make a single cell a viable human being. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:36:46 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to you, you can't murder that which is not human, correct? You've just painted yourself into a corner. You can't defend that law without acknowledging that the fetus is indeed human. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You're being obtuse. Owning other human beings was once legal. Forced sterilization was once legal. Just because nine idiots in black robes foist their opinion upon is does not make it moral or just. The bench is beyond politicized. If SCOTUS were to rule tomorrow that anything other than a musket was illegal, would you embrace and defend the decision? Unless your answer is yes your posts in this thread are morally bankrupt and intellectually disingenuous. I agree with a lot of what you are saying here. The problem I have is you are using a legal term, in a decidedly non-legal discussion, as much as you want abortion to be murder, it simply can't be, because murder has a specific definition, not open to interpretation. You may call an egg a car, but it won't make that egg a car in the real world. I understand you want an emotionally charged word to use, I think the onus is on you to come up with one that is both emotionally charged enough for you and correct in it's usage. Thats a fair request isn't it? It's very simple, if I go up to a pregnant woman and kick her in the stomach and forcing a miscarriage, I will be charged with murder. If she chooses to have a doctor slice and dice the same fetus causing a planned miscarriage, it's not murder. Since it was intended, it can't be manslaughter either. So tell me Mr. Chief Justice, how can the killing of the same fetus be in one instance murder and another instance permissible? You see, I didn't define the killing of that fetus via deliberate assault to be murder, the LAW did. I'm pointing out the blatant and hypocritical dichotomy. It is murder, the law says the intentional taking of that fetus's life is murder. You want to carve out exceptions, I'm the one being consistent. Except that law recognizes the females right to ether abort or decide not to abort. In the case of you kicking her in the belly forcing a spontaneous abortion, that is murder as the woman did not choose it, in the case of her slicing and dicing the fetus with the aid of her Doctor, she did choose it, so it is not murder. You get that right? According to you, you can't murder that which is not human, correct? You've just painted yourself into a corner. You can't defend that law without acknowledging that the fetus is indeed human. Human or A Human? A fetus is undeniably human cells, on that I think we can agree? The disposition of those cells is where we are finding disagreement. We need to come up with the point where it is no longer acceptable to kill the fetus. Some people are going to say as soon as teh ovum and spermatozoa join, others will have later dates in mind. So we are in effect quibbling over dates. What date do you find acceptable? Rape, incest? Are you willing to allow abortions in that case? Which I acknowledged is rather cheap, because if you say yes, then you are willing to kill an innocent baby through no fault of their own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:37:11 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are casting aspersions on my degree, I thought you might have your own to back it up, and I even was willing to accept a DO as payment in this particular game. I gather not then, right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Again, which school did you get your Medical degree from? I will even accept a DO in this case. http://i.imgur.com/gzkxVcH.png You are casting aspersions on my degree, I thought you might have your own to back it up, and I even was willing to accept a DO as payment in this particular game. I gather not then, right? It's immaterial. You're touting falsehoods as facts. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by saying you don't know anything about biology. If you do, in fact, have a medical degree, you're either intentionally spouting false information as fact, or you need to get a refund on your education. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:37:54 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seriously, you're being sarcastic about me not caring about this squabble? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't care anymore... Quitter! Seriously, you're being sarcastic about me not caring about this squabble? Yes, is that a greater offense than swimming against the current? If so, I apologize. I do appreciate you coming in to tell us that you do not care though. One more data point, as weak as it is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:40:56 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When sperm and eggs combine they take two unique DNA codes and create a third unique DNA code derived from the parents. Again you are being incredibly obtuse for somebody who supposedly has a medical degree. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As to fetuses, they are not scientifically a person, as a fetus. But, I think that is the fundamental crux of our disagreement, the point at which it turns from a fetus into a person, no? And what rights it ought to have at each step? First, I'm sorry about your mother, it's terrible to see those who gave us everything suffer. Even though I despised my father, watching a vibrant man transform to a living corpse in four months was simply awful. Take the DNA of a fetus and analyze it. Tell me what the genetic sequencing comes back as.., human. The same DNA it ill have at 100 if it lives that long. Your demanding a line in the sand as to when a fetus becomes a "person" is sophistry. You are demanding a scientific definition while concurrently rejecting the definition science DOES give you. The moment unique human DNA is discernible and the functions of life are detected. Hmm, so when a college freshmen creates DNA, you think that would be considered an individual human life? Or am I misreading you? When sperm and eggs combine they take two unique DNA codes and create a third unique DNA code derived from the parents. Again you are being incredibly obtuse for somebody who supposedly has a medical degree. No, actually I am trying to keep it as simple as possible. You said unique DNA is the prime indicator of humanity. DNA is easily manufactured in a biology lab, I then we non to ask if that was human, lets extend it out a bit, say you inject it into an unfertilized ovum, how about then? DNA is just a code, it does not bestow any magical qualities outside of its encoding. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
