|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted March 16, 2010 10:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Continued from the human stupidity thread:
Which refers to this thread:
http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=32586&pagenumber=3
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 10:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The DNA is also unique, different from that of the mother, and so the fetus is a UNIQUE human, and in no way can be considered part of the body of the mother.
Only because it has a different DNA?
Interesting.
So if I eat a pig, I have pig DNA in my body, which (hopefully  ) is very different to my own DNA, therefore unique.
With your logic, this eaten pig is NOT part of my body, even though it is located in my stomach?
Hard to follow for me, to be honest 
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 12:07 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 12:12, 16 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
The DNA is also unique, different from that of the mother, and so the fetus is a UNIQUE human, and in no way can be considered part of the body of the mother.
Only because it has a different DNA?
Interesting.
So if I eat a pig, I have pig DNA in my body, which (hopefully ) is very different to my own DNA, therefore unique.
With your logic, this eaten pig is NOT part of my body, even though it is located in my stomach?
Hard to follow for me, to be honest
It is odd that you think pigs are humans..... No, what you consume is not part of your body. After it is broken down and digested then the nutrients are used by your body but the pig is not part of your body.
If you would do a little research you would see that a fetus has human DNA and a pig has pig DNA and thus you would not as confused about whether or not when you eat bacon you have a human being in your stomach.
Also, the womb is not used to digest food but is an organ used in sexual reproduction. Human reproduction = reproduce human. Did you miss out on basic biology?
Quote:
To be fair, the baby will just reincarnate, and as it won't likely realize what's going on it won't be traumatized or anything, and its soul will be fine.
[/religious opinion]
Of course you are free to believe in reincarnatino. But that still would not change the fact that an aborted baby is a murdered baby. If you believe in reincarnation I assume you would believe in karma. Murder would = bad bad karma from everything I have read.
I assume you don't object to any murders at all since the person would just be reincarnated and not even know he had been murdered in his past life.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 01:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you would do a little research you would see that a fetus has human DNA and a pig has pig DNA and thus you would not as confused about whether or not when you eat bacon you have a human being in your stomach.
We taste the same, and we are mostly organ compatible.
So yeah.................
____________
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 01:19 PM |
|
|
Okay, so in my example the cells may have stop dividing, that was however a feature you did not include in your last definition.
I still do see a problem with that definition that does not seem to give the same impression of the real world, whereby I'd conclude it to be unsuitable.
That is because, we'd also imagine someone taking a part of a given human, now the DNA condition is met, and include a system that keeps these cells alive, whereby the cell divition condition is met, however without having an actual human being.
That's after all what we do in the experimental lab, we've living cell dividing, these cells have human DNA, eventhough they could never form a human being.
Also the ability to form something is not equal to something, but is a potential in my opinion.
Take a set of Lego, it is not an airplane or a house, but there's the potential of it to be those things. Likewise, everytime you've protected sex, or just uses your hand, there's a potential life going to waste, billions of them, eventhough these would require a women as well, one can argue that these cells could be held alive through proper measure. That is what sperm banks are doing after all.
No, I don't think it is possible for me to see such a definition as defining life, and even when you get the definition right (in my view of course) then it is still up to the mother to decide in my opinion.
We can't force her to do something she doesn't want to, that'd make us bad as well, we don't do bad things, we do good things, and the only way I see to solve this dilemma is to evolve technology to the stage where we can have a baby at any birth stage living independent of the mother.
Btw. the definition I'd find suitable for life, would be a measurement of consciousness (don't confuse it with memory).
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 02:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Okay, so in my example the cells may have stop dividing, that was however a feature you did not include in your last definition.
Actually, I think he mentioned that in the other thread.
And on the thing about potential babies; A sperm isn't a potential baby, it's one of the parts required though. Let's say you have some legos for a wing. That's not a potential plane, even though it's required for it. A fertelized egg can become a human being. Though the part with unique DNA doesn't really sum up.
Another interesting thing is all the master suppression techniques Elodin has to put up with. For the ones of you who don't know what it; look it up dammit! It's interesting (and that's not always a positive thing) that every one constantly gives all those stupid arguements against him. Jokes? Maybe, but propably not. Elodin makes a lot of sense most of the times. He usually backs up his arguements, often with valid points.
That siad, it doesn't mean I agree with him.
____________
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 04:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It is odd that you think pigs are humans.....
If you would do a little research you would see that a fetus has human DNA and a pig has pig DNA and thus you would not as confused about whether or not when you eat bacon you have a human being in your stomach.
Is this a typical Elodin again?
The question here is not which living being has what kind of DNA, but "is something with different DNA located in my body, part of my body or not". And if you say it is not part of the body, then please give any source which underlines this "statement".
So please either answer like a grown up, or don't answer at all.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 05:06 PM |
|
|
I for one claim that abortion is not a problem in itself, but rather a symptom of unwanted pregnancies and popular music. Unwanted pregnancies could be avoided if sexual education was improved upon and contraceptives were advanced to the level of nanomachines injected at birth that - without authorization from an Ubisoft server - disallowed the passage of sperm into semen and ovum into the womb. Another thing that would help alot would be rejecting the immoral values presented by popular music and taking legislative action against rap.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 05:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Another thing that would help alot would be rejecting the immoral values presented by popular music and taking legislative action against rap.
Wait, what!?? 
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Disturbed-Gnu
Supreme Hero
Pro Bacon Vodka Brewer
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 05:46 PM |
|
|
Abortion/Contraception/Stem Cell Research
Well, i'm not shure of what Contraception means, but google did translte it to Protection(Prevention)..
Its important to use it for preventing sex diseases and ofcourse the baby problem.. But if you get unlucky and ends up with a pregnant girlfriend or one-nights-stand girl its a fantastic opportunity to have the Abortion. (Many says that if you are old enough to have sex, your old enough to take responsibility of the girl and child) But i don't think thats a good choice! Long live the abortion clinics (Even people on 18 can't take responsibility of a child, well not all of them)...
And at last stem cell research! Thats a fantastic thing too. Everything that helps humans is worth trying like stem cells!
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 05:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Okay, so in my example the cells may have stop dividing, that was however a feature you did not include in your last definition.
But I did. The fact that the fetus has multiplying cells means it is alive. The fact that it has human DNA means it is human. Human life. That point should be obvious from the fact that the fetus is fetus is the product of human conception but if not, the two previously mentinoed facts establish that without question.
Then the only claim you could make it that the mother has a right to kill her child.
The human life cycle begins with a sperm fertilizing an egg. It is idiotic to claim that the fetus is not a human life.
Quote:
No, I don't think it is possible for me to see such a definition as defining life, and even when you get the definition right (in my view of course) then it is still up to the mother to decide in my opinion.
Why? Tell me why a mother has the right to kill her child.
If you say "Oh, the fetus is completely dependant on her," I say so what? A child is completely dependant on someone to feed, clothe, and shelter them for quite some time. Heck, there are even 30 year olds living in their mother's basement!
Quote:
We can't force her to do something she doesn't want to, that'd make us bad as well, we don't do bad things, we do good things, and the only way I see to solve this dilemma is to evolve technology to the stage where we can have a baby at any birth stage living independent of the mother.
Oh? It is illegal to leave your baby a crib and not feed it. It is illegal to leave a baby in the wilderness to die. So society does force some parents to do things they don't want to do.
No protecting children is a bad thing. Allowing children to be murdered is a bad thing.
Quote:
Quote:
It is odd that you think pigs are humans.....
If you would do a little research you would see that a fetus has human DNA and a pig has pig DNA and thus you would not as confused about whether or not when you eat bacon you have a human being in your stomach.
Quote:
Is this a typical Elodin again?
The question here is not which living being has what kind of DNA, but "is something with different DNA located in my body, part of my body or not". And if you say it is not part of the body, then please give any source which underlines this "statement".
So please either answer like a grown up, or don't answer at all.
I have been answering like an adult. It is moronic to say that what is in your stomach is a part of your body. If you eat a pork chop while it is being digested it is not part of your body. IT IS STILL A PORK CHOP. Pig. The digestive system breaks it down and then the body uses the nutrients and the rest it passed from the body as waste.
Do you really think the pork chop is part of your body? What, does it magically then change to not part of your body when you go to the toliet and the waste passes from your body?
If I swallow a coin is the coin then a part of my body? Sorry, that is just bizzare reasoning.
The fetus is the product of human reproduction, has multiplying cells and human DNA, and therefore is in fact a human life.
Now maybe you can come up with an adult and logical argument that doesn't call everything in your stomach part of your body because frankly a 5 year old child knows that what he swallows in not part of his body.
Pro-abortionists have to jump through all kinds of hoop and make all kinds of silly statements because the facts are all against them. Pro-abortionists are agruing in favor of letting a mother kill her child. Plain and simple.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 06:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The human life cycle begins with a sperm fertilizing an egg. It is idiotic to claim that the fetus is not a human life.
I honestly don't think anyone knows if this is the case. Of course you can define it as you like, but that's not the point, in my opinion. What we need is documentations, I think.
Also, I still don't buy the, it has human DNA, so it is human. Again, you can keep something with human DNA, alive, yet without it ever to become human.
Quote:
Tell me why a mother has the right to kill her child.
The mother can do towards her body as she wants to, no one should be able to stop her in doing what she wants to do to herself. It is thereby her decision. That the baby inside her suffer with her, is her choice to make, unless she give up on that choice to begin with.
The baby might be an individual human being, that is unknown, but it is a part of her, because it is dependent on her to a degree where no one else can offer what she offers. We can only advice her to do the best for herself and her baby, who wouldn't? But we can't force her.
Quote:
If you say "Oh, the fetus is completely dependant on her," I say so what? A child is completely dependant on someone to feed, clothe, and shelter them for quite some time. Heck, there are even 30 year olds living in their mother's basement!
Note the difference of complete dependency of a single person, and the dependencies of someone (that is, anyone can help here).
That gives the choice of have the baby taken away, given the parents aren't fit to take of their baby.
Also, I dislike the way your argument that because A is legal/illegal, so should apply to B, via an analogi, yet you don't consider that maybe A in itself is wrong as well.
The vital difference, and why the analogy is wrong, in my opinion, is that the baby goes from being completely dependent on the mother, to dependent on everyone who would provide for it. It becomes a citizen of the state and it is now the responsibility of the state to make certain every citizen are taken well care of, via giving freedom and security through not limiting said freedom.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 06:30 PM |
|
|
I will just make my point clear... then go.
contraception I am happy with. It's helped me not be a teenage dad, it's stopped plenty of girls I know getting pregnant, it is the one of the most liberating tools to come out of science to date, because it allows choice. the freeing up of sexual activities means that women don't have to lose everything the moment they slip between the sheets.
Abortion is a last resort, and obviously people should be educated further about contraception before something like this happens. But if a woman is raped, or they have forgotten and it's too late, then of course they should be given the CHOICE to have one. No-one is forcing them to have one, they can choose, if they want, to keep the child. Both sides have their strengths and weaknesses.
and of course, Stemcell research, if they can find other sources, then fantastic, but if none are available, then Stem cells can be used to save lives. That's a Good thing.
We live, mostly, in a free society, it's our choice how we treat our bodies. anyone, in my view, who says otherwise is wanting society to backpedal to the age when we were popping boils for sustiance.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 07:22 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 19:23, 16 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
I have been answering like an adult. It is moronic to say that what is in your stomach is a part of your body. If you eat a pork chop while it is being digested it is not part of your body. IT IS STILL A PORK CHOP. Pig. The digestive system breaks it down and then the body uses the nutrients and the rest it passed from the body as waste.
You still try to get out of this problem, don't you? Only because it became part of my body doesn't mean it lost its original meaning. An earring still stays an earring even though a stick it through my ear and make it part of my body.
A car which felt into a sea stills stays a car, even though it is now part of the sea. Or do you deny that it became part of the sea in that case?
Quote:
Do you really think the pork chop is part of your body? What, does it magically then change to not part of your body when you go to the toliet and the waste passes from your body?
So you say it is impossible something is part of a body for a limited time or what?
What about a transplanation of a pig liver? Even though it is part of the human body after the successfull surgery, it still stays a pig liver, right? So you see how your logic fails, not mine
Quote:
If I swallow a coin is the coin then a part of my body? Sorry, that is just bizzare reasoning.
Of course. Everything located in my body is part of the body. You missed the basic lessons in "set theory" in maths in the early days of school?
Quote:
The fetus is the product of human reproduction, has multiplying cells and human DNA, and therefore is in fact a human life.
And why is that a contradiction to the statement "It is part of the mother's body"?
Quote:
Now maybe you can come up with an adult and logical argument that doesn't call everything in your stomach part of your body because frankly a 5 year old child knows that what he swallows in not part of his body.
Again you are wrong. As long as it stays in my body it is part of it. I am sure even a 5 year old knows this
Quote:
Pro-abortionists have to jump through all kinds of hoop and make all kinds of silly statements because the facts are all against them. Pro-abortionists are agruing in favor of letting a mother kill her child. Plain and simple.
Were and when did I say I am a pro-abortionist? Or is everyone who is anot a true christian automatically a pro-abortionist? That would fit into your way of thinking, true, but still I would find that quite odd
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 11:38 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 23:42, 16 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
I honestly don't think anyone knows if this is the case. Of course you can define it as you like, but that's not the point, in my opinion. What we need is documentations, I think.
Also, I still don't buy the, it has human DNA, so it is human. Again, you can keep something with human DNA, alive, yet without it ever to become human.
So you claim that multiplying cells does not mean life?
So you claim that not all humans have human DNA or that creatures other than human also have human DNA?
Please link to a reputable source that says dead things have multiplying cells and that not all humans have human DNA or that non-humans also have human DNA.
It appears you are in denial of basic biological facts.
Quote:
The vital difference, and why the analogy is wrong, in my opinion, is that the baby goes from being completely dependent on the mother, to dependent on everyone who would provide for it. It becomes a citizen of the state and it is now the responsibility of the state to make certain every citizen are taken well care of, via giving freedom and security through not limiting said freedom.
What you have said is illogical. What if a plane crashes on a remote uncharted island. A mother and her infant survive. Your claim is that the mother is free to kill that infant.
So, my understanding is you think that it is the state that grants rights and no human rights exist apart from teh dictates of the state.
What difference does it make if an infant is dependant on only one person, several different persons, or a sequential group of people (like different nurses on different shifts?
I see no way that you can justify defining a person's right to live based on a person being totally dependant on one person for their care.
Quote:
and of course, Stemcell research, if they can find other sources, then fantastic, but if none are available, then Stem cells can be used to save lives. That's a Good thing.
Actually, earlier in this thread I linked to the fact that fat cells can now be used to produce the needed cells and that it can be done quicker that way. Embriotic stem cells just make more money for the abottion industry.
Quote:
We live, mostly, in a free society, it's our choice how we treat our bodies. anyone, in my view, who says otherwise is wanting society to backpedal to the age when we were popping boils for sustiance.
Then you have no objection to someone using their hands to choke the life out of you. After all, they have the absolute right to control their own body.
I disagree that mothers have the right to murder their babies.
Quote:
You still try to get out of this problem, don't you? Only because it became part of my body doesn't mean it lost its original meaning. An earring still stays an earring even though a stick it through my ear and make it part of my body.
A car which felt into a sea stills stays a car, even though it is now part of the sea. Or do you deny that it became part of the sea in that case?
I'm not the one with a problem. You are. Show me a biology textbook that lists an earring or nosering as a body organ or part of a body organ. It is idiotic to say that an earring is part of your body. Clothes are not part of your body either.
No, a car that is driven into the sea is not part of the sea. The car will be under the sea, not part of the sea.
When a person takes a bath you are claiming they become a part of the water? Lollllzzzzzzz.
Quote:
So you say it is impossible something is part of a body for a limited time or what?
What about a transplanation of a pig liver? Even though it is part of the human body after the successfull surgery, it still stays a pig liver, right? So you see how your logic fails, not mine
Yes, I do claim the pig liver would not be part of the body. An artificial heart is also not part of the human body. Placing something in a human body does not make it a part of the body.
Quote:
Quote:
If I swallow a coin is the coin then a part of my body? Sorry, that is just bizzare reasoning.
Of course. Everything located in my body is part of the body. You missed the basic lessons in "set theory" in maths in the early days of school?
Actually, even in high school I had 2 years of calculus. I also had biology. I think you must have skipped biology. Swallowing a coin does not make it part of your body.
Quote:
Quote:
The fetus is the product of human reproduction, has multiplying cells and human DNA, and therefore is in fact a human life.
And why is that a contradiction to the statement "It is part of the mother's body"?
Because the fetus is a unique human life, not part of the mother's body. It has different DNA and so is a unique life. A fetus can alos have a differnt blood type. Evidently someone was snoozing in biology classes.
Quote:
Quote:
Now maybe you can come up with an adult and logical argument that doesn't call everything in your stomach part of your body because frankly a 5 year old child knows that what he swallows in not part of his body.
Again you are wrong. As long as it stays in my body it is part of it. I am sure even a 5 year old knows this
Sorry, again, a coin does not magically become part of a human body when a human swallows it.
Quote:
Were and when did I say I am a pro-abortionist? Or is everyone who is anot a true christian automatically a pro-abortionist? That would fit into your way of thinking, true, but still I would find that quite odd
You seem to have been arguing for abortion. No I don't hink all non-Christians are pro-abortion. One of the big name atheists (Hitchens) is pro-life.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 09:25 AM |
|
|
Still flogging the long dead horse, I see.
One thing is clear: I wouldn't want to live in a state where they allow to kill little babies - that sounds like the devil's own country. I'm pretty certain NO ONE would.
So that leaves the simple question for all those who think that abortion is legalized murder of little babies: how can you live in a society who allows that? Every woman, every doctor, every state official, they all might be murderers, and part of them certainly are.
Isn't that a double moral? Murder is murder, isn't it?
If they would make a law allowing children to kill their parents once they are invalid and need the help of others (the killing would be done by the doctors, of course), no matter their mental state, would you just hold a sign up, "the culling of invalid oldsters is murder"?
If they would allow to kill everyone who's mentally retared, would you just stand there, holding up a sign up, "the culling of the mentally retared is murder"?
So, all discussion notwithstanding, it just seems that even the opponents of abortion don't believe in the "murder" propaganda.
There IS a difference, for everyone to see.
Since it was the "human stupidity" thread that revived this one, let me say one thing.
I respect people who are against abortion, when at the same time they demand a significantly better sexual education, especially in a society that sells most everything with sex and where sex is basically everywhere. (Just as an example: go back into the 50s and 60s with their free advertisements of smoking and stuff - can you really blame juvenile smokers then?). That is, if they'd fight as loudly and insistingly for that education instead just crying murder, anyway.
I have to say, that a position that wants to draw a line somewhere and let people "suffer" the consequences of their doings, is one I can respect: let society do everything to teach them about consequences, then, if they botch it, have a bit more care next time.
However, there is an example for extreme human stupidity here as well: not allowing a raped person an abortion. It has been discussed enough, so I'm not going into that discussion again.
Let me just say, that I think, people who actually have that position are examples of what Corribus in his initial post called "rare human specimens that are contaminating the gene pool. The ones that evolution would have naturally weeded out if it weren't for humanity's apparent modern immunity to natural selection."
Should those people feel offended for being called examples for extreme human stupidity, well, there HAS to be drawn a line somewhere, hasn't it?
Continued in the "human stupidity thread".
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 12:54 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 13:00, 17 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Still flogging the long dead horse, I see.
One thing is clear: I wouldn't want to live in a state where they allow to kill little babies - that sounds like the devil's own country. I'm pretty certain NO ONE would.
Yes, there are still those who can't refute the scientific fact that the fetus is living and is human but who want to continue to say that killing an innocent living human is ok.
Quote:
So that leaves the simple question for all those who think that abortion is legalized murder of little babies: how can you live in a society who allows that? Every woman, every doctor, every state official, they all might be murderers, and part of them certainly are.
No, every woman or doctor might not be a murderer because there are many woman and doctors who fight against abortion. You make such silly statements sometimes.
What, you think those who think babies should not be murdered should flee the country? No, sorry, we'll stay and work to end the holocaust.
Quote:
If they would make a law allowing children to kill their parents once they are invalid and need the help of others (the killing would be done by the doctors, of course), no matter their mental state, would you just hold a sign up, "the culling of invalid oldsters is murder"?
Actually, many pro-abortionists are in favor of euthanasia. They think the old should be killed because they are no longer "productive members of society." They don't respect the right of innocent babies to live, why should they respect the right of the elderly and handicapped to live? Many don't.
Quote:
So, all discussion notwithstanding, it just seems that even the opponents of abortion don't believe in the "murder" propaganda.
Sorry, but that is just ignorant speech. Talk to any pro-life person and they will tell you that abortion is murder. We just don't believe we have a right to kill the abortion doctor to stop the murder. It would do no good even if we did because the woman could go to another abortion doctor. Again, we don't favor shooting abortion doctors.
Quote:
There IS a difference, for everyone to see.
No there is not. The fetus has multiplying cells so it is moronic to say the fetus is not alive.
The fetus has human DNA nd is the prodcut of human conception so it is moronic to say the fetus is not human.
Take the two above facts and it is moronic to say the fetus is not human life. Those are scientific facts. I'm sorry if you reject science.
Quote:
That is, if they'd fight as loudly and insistingly for that education instead just crying murder, anyway.
I have to say, that a position that wants to draw a line somewhere and let people "suffer" the consequences of their doings, is one I can respect: let society do everything to teach them about consequences, then, if they botch it, have a bit more care next time.
Oh, but we do. It is loony libs who fight against education about abortion. They don't want mothers considering abortion to be shown a picture of aborted babies or babies that are still in the womb. They know those pictures show a little human being and it exposes the loony libs for the liar that they are.
Quote:
However, there is an example for extreme human stupidity here as well: not allowing a raped person an abortion. It has been discussed enough, so I'm not going into that discussion again.
Let me just say, that I think, people who actually have that position are examples of what Corribus in his initial post called "rare human specimens that are contaminating the gene pool. The ones that evolution would have naturally weeded out if it weren't for humanity's apparent modern immunity to natural selection."
Should those people feel offended for being called examples for extreme human stupidity, well, there HAS to be drawn a line somewhere, hasn't it?
What is stupid is saying a baby should be murdered because his father is a rapist. Extremely stupid, and extremely evil.
In my opinion, people who actually have that position are examples of what Corribus in his initial post called "rare human specimens that are contaminating the gene pool. The ones that evolution would have naturally weeded out if it weren't for humanity's apparent modern immunity to natural selection."
Should those people feel offended for being called examples for extreme human stupidity, well, there HAS to be drawn a line somewhere, hasn't it?
____________
Revelation
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 02:07 PM |
|
|
@Elodin
Quote:
Actually, many pro-abortionists are in favor of euthanasia. They think the old should be killed because they are no longer "productive members of society."
Come on, Elodin - that's not what most people who are in favor of euthanasia believe, and it disgusts me to see you pervert the belief into something it isn't. Euthanasia isn't about forcibly killing people older than some arbitrary age against their will, like some version of Logan's Run. Euthanasia is about a person's right to end their own life. Whether you agree with that or not is one thing, but to imply that every pro-choicer who is also pro-euthanasia must also be in favor of slaughtering everyone above age XX is just really dishonorable on your part.
God, sometimes it's just damn near impossible to ignore you.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 02:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So you claim that multiplying cells does not mean life?
Depends on how you define life. Though what should be considered is valueable life. You don't provide rights to the cells alone, it requires some kind of existence.
When this is, I don't know, all I am saying is that though, I doubt your claim due to the reasons already listed. That is you can create something with human DNA and multiplying cells without it being human to the understand of human as being something different than a biological machine, etc.
Quote:
So you claim that not all humans have human DNA or that creatures other than human also have human DNA?
No. I claim that human DNA + multiplying cells is unlikely to be enough to determine a uniquely defined existing entity. Though if you can provide data telling otherwise, I'll of course accept your definition.
Quote:
What you have said is illogical. What if a plane crashes on a remote uncharted island. A mother and her infant survive. Your claim is that the mother is free to kill that infant.
If the island is indeed remote as I understand the term, then we have no power of the mother and yes she can do whatever she pleases, the same goes with anyone with power over someone else that we can't do anything about.
However the reason your analogy is false to what I meant, is because the baby is outside the mother now. So the mother can still do what she pleases to her body, but that's without dangering the baby now.
The mother can always do what she pleases towards her body. The baby inside means the baby is in danger. The baby outside, means that others can take her role and take care of the baby in stead of her. That is where the difference is in my opinion. That is what I mean with being dependent on.
Quote:
So, my understanding is you think that it is the state that grants rights and no human rights exist apart from teh dictates of the state.
Rights are something we've invented. The one in sufficient power grants these rights. I see nothing weird in this.
Also, why did you ignore the whole sperm cell stuff? Why not call these life? They've pretty much the same potential. That is under the right condition they turn into a living being. As is with the fetus, if you change the conditions it won't turn into a living being, if you don't it will. Why call a fetus alive and sperm cells not, when both depends on certain conditions, and thereby both have the potential to become human life? Or eggs from the woman for that matter?
It is important to differ potential life and actual life. We don't have the ressources to make all potential life into actual life, when we have I hope we do, but until then, there's nothing we really can do.
The same goes for any stage of dependency of certain conditions, which only can be provided by a single person.
I mean, what would you do, if abort is illegal, and then the woman goes out and commit suicide?
I follow why it's unpleasent to think about life being wasted like that, potential or actual (which is what I questioned you about), but none the less, we're born with certain tools, these tools keeps us in contact to this world, in the sense that without having these, a person cannot live.
However what these tools are, are still beyond our ability to manipulate with for what I know. That means the baby is completely dependent on what the mother will do, and no one else can really help the baby than the mother. If the mother decides she wants an abort, then the baby, existing entity(soul) or not, the baby can't survive in the world outside, because the tools needed aren't fully developed.
The best thing we ever can do, is to create technology, so we can develop those tools to what is required.
Also if you're in doubt, the tools I'm talking about can be understood as the functions of the body, in general.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 17, 2010 02:33 PM |
|
|
Two things, Elodin.
1) I take it you're a fan of fox news and glenn beck in particular, especially with you're talk of "Loony Libs". are you any relation to Senator McCarthy, by any chance?
2) Have you ever read the comic series Transmetropolitan. the character of "the smiler" is frightening close to mister beck.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
