Dick Cheney Was Right

[Bonestorm]

Again dipshit.... it is not the same.... freezing the eggs is not killing them. Seriously, look up stasis, educated yourself on what it means. If the freezing process killed the kids then it the doctors would be implanting DEAD fertilized eggs.

Look up the success rates of in vitro fertilization of formerly frozen children. Look up the number of frozen children that are destroyed or discarded. Look up the numbers on how many frozen children are murdered in the thawing process.

It is a process that by its very nature involves the murder of children.

 

[Cancel7]

"If the freezing process killed the kids "

Seriously - you just have to think about that statement...

Well, he is probably talking about being scientifically flash frozen? SF once told me during this kinda existential discussion we had, that he was going to have his head frozen just like a chicken cutlet just before he died and then some kindly doctor was going to reanimate him 500 years into the future. It's cheaper to have just your head frozen, and they think that by then, they'll be able to slap a new body on you just like it was nothing.

So this whole the freezing process not killing the zygotes thing might be related. But I'm no expert.

 

[Cancel7]

You mean PRO-LIFE.... not your normal anti-life.

The point is, have you or your grandmother/parent done any good with their life or are your lives worthless and devoid of any meaning?

My life is pretty much worthless and devoid of any meaning other then the entertainment value I provide you fools here with.

The other point might be that if I had never existed I would be as aware of that as I was of all of the infinite amount of time that passed when I didn't exist. Which is to say, not at all. We're all facing that in a very short amount of time SF. If you never exist, you just got a head start on everyone else.

 

[Cancel5]

we killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's in the war.

They aren't human, remember, they are MUSLIMS! You have to spit when you say that word, too!

 

[Cancel5]

Some most certainly are as we have witnessed in Wichita. But to define an entire group by the most extreme of the group is rather silly.

It would be like saying all liberals are severely retarded, emotionally crippled simpletons who should keep a dictionary at hand at all times so that they quit misspelling 'cat'.

You see it would be quite unfair to judge all liberals based on you... now wouldn't it?

Dixie does it all the time, thanks for restating this point!

 

[Cancel5]

Dumbass... the use of 'dear emotional one' is simply a mockery of Darla's constant need to project what she thinks my emotional condition is upon me.

The comparison to Hitler is a valid one. No matter how much you dislike it. Like pro-abortionists, Hitler tried to dehumanize a group of human beings in order to justify killing them.

If you feel that is wrong, please again, explain where it is wrong in your opinion.

Side note.... if your explanation is going to go to the 'well they are just potential humans' again, then please explain when it is that they magically turn human. Because you keep ducking that point.

It has changed so many times over the centuries, modern technology has allowed us to save the lives of the fetus in cases where they would have died even twenty years ago.

I believe it is when they are able to breathe on their own.

Another might believe it is at conception and another when "quickening" begins.

I think it is a personal decision. I would not have an abortion. I can not in good conscience make that decision for another woman.

Bottom line, it is a personal issue.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"At NO time is it not human or not in existance"

You're wrong. I don't know how anyone can argue that a clump of cells without a brain, cognizence or any real functionality that is completely reliant on another's body is a "human in existence."

Ahhh yes, the old ....'its a clump of cells argument' idiocy. We are all clumps of cells moron.

Again... take this in two simple steps... tell me which one you are disagreeing with.

1) It is human. Given that genetics dictate this as FACT, I know this must not be the point you are against.

2) It exists. Nope, this is also a FACT. So tell me, which of the two facts do you have a problem with?

You keep wanting to revert back to your 'its not developed enough' argument. Fine. That argument works for whether or not you think the child should be entitled to rights. But it does not change the FACT that the child exists or that it is human.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It has changed so many times over the centuries, modern technology has allowed us to save the lives of the fetus in cases where they would have died even twenty years ago.

I believe it is when they are able to breathe on their own.

Another might believe it is at conception and another when "quickening" begins.

I think it is a personal decision. I would not have an abortion. I can not in good conscience make that decision for another woman.

Bottom line, it is a personal issue.

I understand that it has changed from one arbitrary point to another. I also understand that it is personal. However, the woman is not deciding on something that effects ONLY her. There is another life at stake.

if someone, not capable of defending themselves, is attacked.... do we stand by and do nothing or do we try to help?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Dixie does it all the time, thanks for restating this point!

Yes, I called him out on it today for doing just that.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

My life is pretty much worthless and devoid of any meaning other then the entertainment value I provide you fools here with.
.

Which is little... so, well, if your life is devoid and you provide no value and being killed isn't so bad because you won't know it after the fact, then... well... whats the next logical step?

 

[Onceler]

Ahhh yes, the old ....'its a clump of cells argument' idiocy. We are all clumps of cells moron.

Again... take this in two simple steps... tell me which one you are disagreeing with.

1) It is human. Given that genetics dictate this as FACT, I know this must not be the point you are against.

2) It exists. Nope, this is also a FACT. So tell me, which of the two facts do you have a problem with?

You keep wanting to revert back to your 'its not developed enough' argument. Fine. That argument works for whether or not you think the child should be entitled to rights. But it does not change the FACT that the child exists or that it is human.

Science also dictates that it is not a fully functional HUMAN BEING. You keep ignoring that. There are certainly characteristics and functionalities that we ascribe to being a human being, or "kid." All those frozen embryos? They're not "kids." Microscopic embyros sitting in some petri dish? Not kids. Zygotes that haven't formed any human organs, including a brain? Not kids.

It's not murder, any more than freezing embryos is not freezing "babies." You are abandoning common sense in favor of a very strict definition of what constitutes a life with full rights, because of the uncertaintly surrounding when something actually "becomes" a life with full rights. And you're doing that at the expense of any consideration for the woman who actually has to deal with it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Science also dictates that it is not a fully functional HUMAN BEING. You keep ignoring that. There are certainly characteristics and functionalities that we ascribe to being a human being, or "kid." All those frozen embryos? They're not "kids." Microscopic embyros sitting in some petri dish? Not kids. Zygotes that haven't formed any human organs, including a brain? Not kids.

It's not murder, any more than freezing embryos is not freezing "babies." You are abandoning common sense in favor of a very strict definition of what constitutes a life with full rights, because of the uncertaintly surrounding when something actually "becomes" a life with full rights. And you're doing that at the expense of any consideration for the woman who actually has to deal with it.

No, I am not ignoring that. But again, you are placing qualifications on a human being. Being fully functional or not does not alter the fact that you are a human being. If someone loses an arm or a leg or as Soc stated is brain-dead on life support, they do not cease being human.

Yes there are characteristics we attribute to being a human being, but we also recognize that every human being goes through development. We know that if we allow that development to continue, they will have all the attributes we expect a human to develop. But there are cases where that doesn't happen. Genetic defects cause some to develop abnormally. But that too does not make them any less human.

You again bring back the 'when it BECOMES a life'. This is an absurd comment. How any intelligent individual can keep coming back to this amazes me (yes, I call you a dipshit and retard at times, but that is a more of an in the moment thing).

Again, argue all you want that the child should not be entitled to rights. That is a legitimate argument. But unless you are going to finally prove that it isn't a life prior to your magical arbitrary date, then please stop with this idiocy.

 

[Cancel7]

Which is little... so, well, if your life is devoid and you provide no value and being killed isn't so bad because you won't know it after the fact, then... well... whats the next logical step?

I get my own Reality show?

You are such a twister SF. Do you have to twist in your business? I hope so, you should make money from this talent. I didn't say being killed wasn't so bad, I said that never having existed isn't so bad, for what I think are very obvious reasons, beginning with; you wouldn't exist so you wouldn't have any way of knowing it. If I hadn't existed, it wouldn't matter to me because there would be no me for it to matter to. Maybe you are a little bit too enamored of your own existence and you think it has more meaning than it actually does. But I don't share that feeling. This is an interesting and very revealing subject because what we are really dancing around here is fear of death, which boils down to fear of non-existence for eternity. And when that starts rearing its head, you never know what is going to come out of someone's deep unconscious.

But it still has nothing to do with the right to abortion, which thankfully we have, and will continue to have.

 

[Damocles]

Science also dictates that it is not a fully functional HUMAN BEING. You keep ignoring that. There are certainly characteristics and functionalities that we ascribe to being a human being, or "kid." All those frozen embryos? They're not "kids." Microscopic embyros sitting in some petri dish? Not kids. Zygotes that haven't formed any human organs, including a brain? Not kids.

It's not murder, any more than freezing embryos is not freezing "babies." You are abandoning common sense in favor of a very strict definition of what constitutes a life with full rights, because of the uncertaintly surrounding when something actually "becomes" a life with full rights. And you're doing that at the expense of any consideration for the woman who actually has to deal with it.

And here is where we finally have some agreement.

If you place "personhood" in the place of "Human Being"... (at least it appears that you understand that it is a human life, but apply your measure of "human being" onto it, whichever arbitrary line you draw.)

While it is a human life, it may or may not be a "person" based on arbitrary measures, sometimes we would use brain function, or "viability", but these measures are arbitrary and based on when people might philosophically agree that a "person" exists.

It is possible to scientifically determine if there is brain functionality, this is one measure society placed to value the human life as a "person" and therefore a viable recipient for medical attention because there is a possibility of saving a "person". In the case of the embryo "viability" often is the measure used. Most pro-life people would argue that such a measure is the wrong one, and do. Others argue that its first breath is what makes it a "person" or "human being"... While the instruments to measure the brain function may be scientific, using this as the standard of "person" or "human being" is arbitrary. One could as easily select a different measure.

Pro-lifers argue that these measures are arbitrary, based on philosophical questions and that we should, until we know the right, err always on the side of life rather than constantly on the side of death.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I get my own Reality show?

You are such a twister SF. Do you have to twist in your business? I hope so, you should make money from this talent. I didn't say being killed wasn't so bad, I said that never having existed isn't so bad, for what I think are very obvious reasons, beginning with; you wouldn't exist so you wouldn't have any way of knowing it. If I hadn't existed, it wouldn't matter to me because there would be no me for it to matter to. Maybe you are a little bit too enamored of your own existence and you think it has more meaning than it actually does. But I don't share that feeling. This is an interesting and very revealing subject because what we are really dancing around here is fear of death, which boils down to fear of non-existence for eternity. And when that starts rearing its head, you never know what is going to come out of someone's deep unconscious.

But it still has nothing to do with the right to abortion, which thankfully we have, and will continue to have.

That would be a very sick reality show.

Yes, but you ignore the fact that if it never existed then there would be no need for an abortion.

 

[Bonestorm]

Look up the success rates of in vitro fertilization of formerly frozen children. Look up the number of frozen children that are destroyed or discarded. Look up the numbers on how many frozen children are murdered in the thawing process.

It is a process that by its very nature involves the murder of children.

?

 

[Damocles]

?

Which is AGAIN, just another reason to dislike such clinics. What part of the "I dislike these clinics because of the number of deaths they create" post that I posted earlier in the thread makes this confusing to you?

 

[Onceler]

No, I am not ignoring that. But again, you are placing qualifications on a human being. Being fully functional or not does not alter the fact that you are a human being. If someone loses an arm or a leg or as Soc stated is brain-dead on life support, they do not cease being human.

Yes there are characteristics we attribute to being a human being, but we also recognize that every human being goes through development. We know that if we allow that development to continue, they will have all the attributes we expect a human to develop. But there are cases where that doesn't happen. Genetic defects cause some to develop abnormally. But that too does not make them any less human.

You again bring back the 'when it BECOMES a life'. This is an absurd comment. How any intelligent individual can keep coming back to this amazes me (yes, I call you a dipshit and retard at times, but that is a more of an in the moment thing).

Again, argue all you want that the child should not be entitled to rights. That is a legitimate argument. But unless you are going to finally prove that it isn't a life prior to your magical arbitrary date, then please stop with this idiocy.

Well, I can certainly find plenty of agreement there. I have said all along that viability is really the only point where the sides CAN compromise, though there are those on both sides who will choose not to do so.

Because it is arbitrary, many on the pro-life side simply don't want to deal with it, and continue to insist that destroying a microscopic clump of cells is the equivalent of baby-killing.

But it HAS to be arbitrary. To delve into the other argument - accepting that a zygote is a human being with full rights, and then exploring the extent of those rights, I would STILL contend with moral authority that no human with full rights has any right whatsoever to rent another human's body for 9 months, with all that it entails.

I often wonder if people who are so vehemently pro-life have ever even known someone who is pregnant, and what it means to be pregnant physically, emotionally, mentally, etc. It is not something to be taken lightly, and despite the characterizations of women who have abortions as doing so out of "convenience" or as birth control, the situations are very often far more serious than that, and the circumstances such that abortion is truly the best option, for anyone involved.

Viability is a good compromise. It's arbitrary, and there may be different standards for where it occurs, but it's the only sensible option.

 

[DamnYankee]

Look up the success rates of in vitro fertilization of formerly frozen children. Look up the number of frozen children that are destroyed or discarded. Look up the numbers on how many frozen children are murdered in the thawing process.

It is a process that by its very nature involves the murder of children.

Good point, and one that I've never considered previously. It is a similar ethical issue as fetal cell research.

 

[Bonestorm]

Which is AGAIN, just another reason to dislike such clinics. What part of the "I dislike these clinics because of the number of deaths they create" post that I posted earlier in the thread makes this confusing to you?

It's got nothing to do with you, hombre.

I' so proud of you for standing by your man though. Speaking of which, how is Tancredo doing? I haven't seem much of him since he called La Raza the Latino KKK sans robes and nooses. Oh, and how's Shaeffer doing in the margarita biz?